I 


BX  8955  .W66  1853 
Wood.  James,  1799-l«b/ 
The  doctrinal  differences 
which  have  agitated  and 


a,^^'<^ 


?).£). 


.  •m 


,    Pv.   /^-TT-'Z'Z^  5^  a.-'i^^ 


THE  DOCTRINAL  DIFFERENCES 

^  % 

AGITATED  AND   DIVIDE^  >»  ^'^'^  ^^   A^ 


THE 


PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH: 

OR 

OLD    AND    NEW   THEOLOGY. 

/ 

'I 

V 
By  JAMES  WOOD,  D.  D. 


The  old  is  better. — Luke  v.  39. 


ENLARGED    EDITION. 


PHILADELPHIA : 

PRESBYTERIAN  BOARD  OF  PUBLICATION. 

1853. 


CONTENTS. 


PAGE. 

Introduction  to  the  Third  Edition 5 

Preface  to  the  First  Edition  in  1838 15 

CHAPTER  I. 
The  character  and  government  of  God 25 

CHAPTER  II. 

God's  covenant  with  Adam  and  our  relation  to  him  as  our 
federal  head — involving  the  doctrine  of  imputation  and 
original   sin 41 

CHAPTER  III. 

The  subject  of  the  preceding  chapter  continued — exhibit- 
ing the  New  Theology  concerning  God's  covenant  with 
Adam  as  the  federal  head  of  his  posterity,  imputation, 
original  sin,  &c • 55 

CHAPTER  IV. 

Remarks  on  imputation,  original  sin,  &c.  with  reference  to 
the  views  presented  in  the  preceding  chapter 71 

CHAPTER  V. 

The  sufferings  of  Christ  and  our  justification  through  him    89 

CHAPTER  VI. 

Justification—a  continuation  of  the  preceding  chapter. .,   128 


4  CONTENTS. 


PAGE. 

CHAPTER  yil. 

Human  ability,  regeneration,  and  tlie  influences  of  the 
Holy  Spirit 150 

CHAPTER  yill. 

Human  ability,  regeneration,  &c.  continued  from  the  pre- 
ceding  chapter 173 

CHAPTER  IX. 

A  contrast  between  the  Old  and  New  Theology,  by  way  of 
review,  and  a  notice  of  the  Perfectionism  of  Mr.  Fin- 
ney     193 

CHAPTER  X. 

The  measures  adopted  by  the  General  Assembly  for  re- 
moving these  errors  from  the  Presbyterian  Church. . . .  217 

CHAPTER  XI. 
The  acts  of  the  General  Assembly  in  1837  and  1838 238 

CHAPTER  XII. 

Present  character  and  condition  of  the  Old  and  New- 
school  bodies 274 


INTRODUCTION 


TO    THE    THIRD    EDITION. 


The  following  treatise  is  designed  to  demonstrate 
that  the  issue  between  the  two  parties  in  the  late 
controversy  in  the  Presbyterian  Church  was  strictly 
a  doctrinal  one.  Hence  the  work  consists  mainly  of 
a  comparison  of  doctrinal  views,  as  contained  in  the 
productions  of  Old  and  New-school  writers.  Near 
the  close  of  the  volume  we  remark,  "  It  has  been  our 
aim,  both  in  our  statements  and  quotations,  to  exhibit 
the  doctrines  of  the  New  Theology,  just  as  they  are, 
without  the  least  exaggeration.  For  this  purpose 
our  extracts  from  New-school  authors  have  been 
numerous,  and  sufficiently  extended  as  to  length,  to 
give  a  correct  view  of  their  sentiments.  But  if  it 
can  be  made  to  appear  that  we  have  misrepresented 
their  views  in  a  single  important  point,  we  shall 
cheerfully  rectify  the  mistake."  The  first  edition 
was  published  in  1838;  and  the  second  in  1845.  It 
has  been  circulated  widely;  but  up  to  the  present 
time,  (1853),  no  refutation  has  been  attempted  and 
no  corrections  proposed.  Is  not  this  silence  a  virtual 
admission  of  the  fidelity  of  our  quotations,  and  the 
essential  verity  of  our  statements?  It  has  been 
denied,  indeed,  that  the  New-school  Presbyterians 
as  a  hody,  maintain  the  errors  imputed  to  them  by 
their  Old-school  brethren;  and  yet  the  existence  of 
those  errors  among  them,  they  themselves  acknow- 
ledge. 

In  a  volume  recently  prepared  by  a  committee  of 
1* 


6  INTRODU  CTION. 

the  Synod  of  New  York  and  New  Jersey,  and  pub- 
lished under  the  sanction  of  the  Synod,  entitled 
"A  History  of  the  Division  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church  in  the  United  States  of  America,"  I  find  the 
following:  "Before  a  refutation  is  attempted  of  the 
charges  of  gross  errors  and  irregularities  against 
constitutional  Presbyterians,  justice  to  them  requires 
that  it  be  stated  and  borne  in  mind,  that  an  over- 
whelming majority  of  them  have  never  denied  that 
there  were  errors  in  doctrine  and  irregularities  in 
practice  in  the  churches,  which  required  correction. 
They  believed  there  were,  deplored  their  existence, 
and  were  willing  to  co-operate  in  the  employment  of 
constitutional  and  scriptural  means  for  their  removal. 
They  then  resisted  and  have  uniformly  borne  their 
testimony  against  them.  The  evils  complained  of 
were  mainly  attributable  to  a  class  of  reckless  evan- 
gelists, and  pastors  who  admitted  them  to  their  pul- 
pits, some  of  whom  doubtless  approved  and  adopted 
their  doctrines  and  measures."  The  exact  number 
of  those  who  embraced  these  errors,  we  have  never 
professed  to  state.  We  did  not  know;  and  could 
therefore  only  say,  that  so  far  as  we  could  infer 
from  circumstances,  we  believed  the  number  to  be 
considerable.  In  1838,  we  thought  it  probable  they 
formed  a  majority  of  the  new  Assembly;  but  if  we 
were  mistaken,  if  "an  overwhelming  majority,"  were 
opposed  to  those  errors,  and  "  deplored  their  exist- 
ence," it  affords  us  the  highest  satisfaction  to  acknow- 
ledge our  mistake.  But  whether  they  were  few  or 
many,  their  number  was  sufficient  to  disturb  the  peace 
of  the  whole  church ;  and  so  influential  as  to  render 
the  ordinary  method  of  church  discipline  ineifective 
and  impracticable. 

After  the  above  admission  of  the  existence  of 
*' errors  and  irregularities  which  required  correction," 
and    the    declaration    that    they   (the    New-school) 


INTRODUCTION.  7 

"deplored  their  existence,"  that  they  "then  resisted 
and  have  uniformly  borne  their  testimony  against 
them,"  &c.,  we  were  prepared  to  expect  that  due 
credit  would  be  given  to  their  Old-school  brethren 
for  their  laudable  zeal  in  endeavouring  to  remove 
"the  evils  complained  of;"  however  strongly  they 
might  object  to  the  measures  adopted  for  this  pur- 
pose. But  so  far  from  this,  the  author  of  this  vol- 
ume, (strange  to  relate)  does  not  give  the  Old-school 
Assembly  credit  even  for  sincerity  in  assigning  doc- 
trinal errors  as  the  main  ground  of  their  proceedings 
in  the  case.  The  existence  of  errors  exerted,  accord- 
ing to  his  statement,  a  very  subordinate  influence  in 
producing  the  alarm  which  was  felt  by  their  Old- 
school  brethren,  and  in  leading  to  those  measures 
which  resulted  in  a  division  of  the  church.  The 
real  cause  of  anxiety,  it  is  alleged,  was  their  wan- 
ing influence  in  the  church,  by  the  rapid  increase 
of  the  New-school  party ;  and  their  urgency  for  final 
action  arose  from  a  determination  to  gain  a  perma- 
nent ascendency  by  excluding  a  portion  of  those  who 
stood  in  their  way.  The  proof  of  this,  as  adduced  in 
this  volume,  consists  mainly  of  a  historical  statement 
concerning  the  controversy  with  regard  to  benevolent 
operations — the  Old-school  believing  it  to  be  the  duty 
of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  her  organized  capa- 
city, to  carry  on  the  work  of  missions,  &c. ;  and  the 
New  maintaining  that  this  work  could  be  prosecuted 
more  efiiciently  by  voluntary  societies,  in  the  support 
of  which  all  evano-elical  churches  should  unite. 

It  is  not  our  purpose  to  give  the  history  of  this 
controversy.  Before  its  termination,  it  had  assumed 
a  serious  aspect,  considered  merely  as  a  question  of 
benevolent  action.  It  had  come  to  this — not  whether 
ecclesiastical  boards  are  preferable,  but  whether  they 
should  be  tolerated,  our  New-school  brethren  made 
repeated  efiorts  from  1828  to  1831,  to  secure  a  vote 


8  INTRODUCTION. 

of  the  Assembly,  and  the  consent  of  the  church  at 
large,  to  merge  the  Board  of  Domestic  Missions  in 
the  American  Home  Missionary  Society;  and  in 
1836,  they  refused  (being  a  majority  of  the  Assem- 
bly that  year)  to  ratify  the  contract  entered  into  the 
year  previous,  with  the  Synod  of  Pittsburgh,  by  which 
the  Western  Foreign  Missionary  Society,  which  had 
been  conducted  by  the  latter  body,  was  to  become 
the  Assembly's  Board  of  Foreign  Missions.  This 
refusal  is  denominated  in  the  volume  before  us,  a 
*^  signal  defeat"  of  the  ^'ultraists;"  meaning  the  Old- 
school  minority  in  the  Assembly.  If  then,  as  is 
alleged,  there  was  on  the  part  of  the  latter,  "a. con- 
test for  'poiuer^''  it  was  for  the  power  of  clioiee  in 
regard  to  the  channel  through  which  their  benevo- 
lence should  flow ;  the  power  to  exercise  their  Chris- 
tian liberty  as  to  the  mode  in  which  they  should 
endeavour  to  promote  evangelical  religion  in  our 
country ;  the  power  to  act  according  to  the  dictates 
of  their  own  consciences  in  having  our  branch  of  the 
church  enrolled  as  a  distinct  and  organized  body 
among  the  hosts  of  the  Lord,  while  engaged  in  fulfill- 
ing the  Saviour's  last  command,  "  Go  ye  into  all  the 
world  and  preach  the  gospel  to  every  creature." 

But  though  this  was  a  matter  which  was  justly 
deemed  to  be  of  great  importance,  it  might  have  been 
adjusted,  if  nothing  else  had  been  involved  in  it. 
With  regard  to  Domestic  Missions,  a  compromise  was 
effected  in  1831,  and  acquiesced  in  by  both  parties. 
But  it  was  perceived  that  the  difficulty  lay  deeper 
than  this — that  the  foundation  of  their  disagreement 
with  regard  to  Ecclesiastical  Boards,  was  a  discre- 
pancy in  doctrinal  views;  and  that  the  evil,  instead  of 
being  remedied  by  concession  or  delay,  would  be  likely 
to  increase,  through  the  influence  of  new  Presbyteries, 
which  would  be  formed  under  the  Plan  of  Union,  and 
the  operation  in  our  bounds  of  those  societies,  which 


INTRODUCTION.  9 

had  now  become,  in  the  hands  of  our  New-school 
brethren,  a  powerful  instrument  to  control  the  policy 
and  modify  [''Americanize"]  the  character  of  the 
church.  If,  again,  there  was,  on  the  part  of  the  Old- 
school,  a  "  contest  for  power ^''  it  was  for  the  power  of 
preserving  the  jownY?/  of  the  gospel^  as  expressed  in 
our  Confession  of  Faith ;  and  of  maintaining  a  whole- 
some and  necessary  discipline  of  those  who  had  intro- 
duced into  our  heritage  strange  and  unscriptural 
doctrines.  If,  as  this  volume  asserts,  our  New-school 
brethren  "were  willing  to  co-operate  in  the  employ- 
ment of  constitutional  and  scriptural  means  for  their 
removal,"  how  did  it  happen  that  in  every  case  of 
judicial  process  which  came  before  the  Assembly,  on 
charges  of  doctrinal  errors,  they  took  sides  with  the 
accused !  under  the  convenient  plea  that  latitude  in 
doctrinal  belief  was  authorized  by  the  Adopting  Act 
of  1729,  and  that  the  errors  charged  were  not  ''"fun- 
damental;''  as  though  any  doctrine,  the  belief  of 
which  does  not  absolutely  peril  our  personal  salvation, 
may  be  held  and  preached  in  our  church  without 
censure.  This  may  be  regarded  as  liberal;  but  in 
our  judgment,  it  is  more  so  than  is  consistent  with  the 
precepts  of  the  gospel,  or  compatible  with  the  purity, 
peace  and  prosperity  of  the  church. 

But  we  have  no  intention  of  reviewing  the  work 
alluded  to.  The  numerous  documents  contained  in  it 
are  doubtless  a  faithful  transcript  from  the  records, 
and  give  of  course,  as  far  as  they  go,  a  true  history  of 
the  case.  If  these  had  been  published  without  notes 
or  comments,  no  objections  could  be  reasonably  made 
to  the  book,  either  by  Old-school  or  New.  But  the 
accompanying  remarks  are  very  different  from  the 
version  which  is  given  of  those  transactions  by  Old- 
school  men.  In  the  three  concluding  chapters  of  the 
following  treatise,  (10th,  11th  and  12th — not  published 
in  previous  editions,)  we  shall  give  our  views  concern- 


10  INTRODUCTION. 

ing  these  matters,  without  any  particular  reference, 
however,  to  the  "History"  ahove  noticed. 

Though  my  observations  and  reasonings  do  not  ac- 
cord with  those  of  New-school  writers,  I  see  no  occa- 
sion for  imitating  some  of  them  in  the  use  of  severe 
and  opprobrious  epithets.  Our  doctrinal  dijBTerences 
form  no  apology  for  personal  abuse.  The  term  New- 
school,  which  we  employ,  is  not  designed  as  a  reproach, 
but  as  a  convenient  and  appropriate  designation  of  a 
party,  as  distinguished  from  the  other,  who  are  com- 
monly denominated  Old-school.  The  writer  of  the 
volume  which  we  have  had  occasion  to  mention,  does 
not  object  to  these  terms,  but  endeavours  to  show  that, 
by  a  strange  misnomer,  they  are  applied  exactly  oppo- 
site to  what  they  ought  to  be.  The  manner  in  which 
they  came  to  be  employed  is  well  known.  The  first 
issue  in  the  late  controversy  was  made  in  the  case  of 
the  Kev.  Albert  Barnes,  in  1830 ;  and  his  published 
errors  were  made,  five  years  afterwards,  (1835)  a 
ground  of  prosecution.  Immediately  parties  were 
arrayed;  one  resolved  to  make  him  amenable  for 
these  errors ;  the  other  equally  resolved  to  defeat  the 
attempt  and  hold  him  guiltless.  During  the  protracted 
controversy  which  followed,  the  conflicting  points  of 
two  materially  variant  systems  of  theology  were 
brought  prominently  to  view.  The  question  was, 
Shall  the  doctrinal  symbols  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church  be  maintained  in  their  integrity,  or  shall  every 
one  be  allowed  to  interpret  them  according  to  his  own 
caprice  ?  The  party  maintaining  these  standards, 
agreeably  to  their  obvious  and  long  settled  meaning, 
were  soon  and  justly  characterized  as  the  Old-school ; 
while  that  which  contended  for  latitude  of  interpreta- 
tion, and  the  allowance  of  novel  schemes  of  doctrine, 
were  styled  with  equal  propriety  New-school.  In 
drawing  the  lines  of  demarcation,  it  was  never  sup- 
posed or  pretended  that  all  the  ministers,  and  espe- 


INTRODUCTION.  11 

cially  all  the  people  who  placed  themselves  under  the 
New-school  array,  really  held  the  alleged  errors  of 
some  of  their  party ;  but  submitting  to  leaders  who 
did  hold  them,  or  who  gave  them  their  countenance, 
by  shielding  such  as  had  deserted  the  old  landmarks, 
they  necessarily  acquired  the  same  name.  How  far 
these  reasons  exist  for  appropriating  to  them  this  ap- 
pellation at  the  present  time,  will  appear  from  Chap, 
xii.  of  this  treatise. 

We  see  no  cause  for  altering  the  work  as  far  as  it 
was  published  in  former  editions,  notwithstanding  the 
allegation  that  we  "quoted  mostly  from  Congrega- 
tional authors,  with  whom,  on  these  points,  the  New- 
school  Presbyterians  have  but  little  sympathy."  This 
is  a  mistake.  My  quotations  were  mostly  from  authors 
who  at  the  time  of  the  publication  of  the  books  quoted 
from,  were  ministers  in  good  standing  in  the  Presbyte- 
rian Church ;  and  with  two  or  three  exceptions  they  are 
now  in  the  New-school  body.  Mr.  Finney,  though 
now  a  Congregationalist,  was  for  some  time  a  min- 
ister in  the  Presbyterian  Church,  during  which  period 
he  preached  with  approbation  in  numerous  Presbyte- 
rian pulpits  in  Western  New  York,  the  substance  of 
those  discourses  which  afterwards  appeared  in  print; 
and  their  publication,  for  the  most  part,  was  prior  to 
his  leaving  the  Presbyterian  Church.  Since  then  he 
has  published  his  "System  of  Theology,"  in  which 
there  is  scarcely  one  trace  of  Calvinism;  and  the 
extreme  views  which  he  now  maintains,  he  alleges, 
are  the  legitimate  results  of  those  doctrines.  The 
proof  which  we  adduced  from  Congregationalist  au- 
thors, though  indirect,  was  legitimate.  New  Haven 
was  the  foster  parent  of  these  errors;  and  the  Quar- 
terly issued  there,  from  which  our  quotations  were 
chiefly  made,  was  not  only  read  extensively  by  Pres- 
byterian ministers,  but  was  the  medium  through 
which  one  of  them  (the  Rev.  Albert  Barnes)  published 


12  INTRODUCTION. 

some  of  his  most  objectionable  matter.  It  was  not 
from  a  conviction  of  its  irrelevancy  that  Andover  was 
not  also  referred  to.  As  many  of  the  ministers  who 
sided  with  the  New-school  were  alumni  of  the  Theo- 
logical Seminary  at  Andover,  the  sentiments  of  one 
of  the  Professors  of  that  Institution  might  have  been 
quoted  with  propriety,  as  tending  to  show  the  essen- 
tially anti-Presbyterian  doctrines  taught  in  that 
school.  The  late  Professor  Stuart,  who,  with  that 
party,  was  a  kind  of  oracle,  repudiated,  in  some  of 
its  most  important  particulars,  that  form  of  sound 
words  which  has  ever  been  the  glory  of  the  Presbyte- 
rian Church.  His  pupils  undoubtedly  adopted  many 
of  his  peculiar  sentiments.  One  of  the  present  in- 
cumbents. Professor  Park,  has  diverged  still  more 
widely  from  the  doctrines  of  our  church;  and  yet 
what  New-school  journal  has  condemned  his  errors, 
or  cautioned  their  candidates  for  the  ministry  to 
avoid  his  teachings  ? 

In  an  anonymous  pamphlet  which  has  just  come 
into  my  hands,  the  design  of  which  is  to  show 
that  there  is  no  essential  difference  between  the 
doctrines  of  the  two  schools,  my  treatise  is  barely 
alluded  to  in  two  or  three  brief  remarks,  one  of  which 
is,  that  I  misunderstand  the  New-school  Presbyterians 
whom  I  quote.  But  as  no  intimation  is  given  that 
my  quotations  are  incorrect,  it  is  not  very  material 
how  I  understand  them.  Every  reader  can  interpret 
them  for  himself.  My  office  was  rather  that  of  a 
compiler  than  an  expositor.  I  submitted  the  question 
of  agreement  or  disagreement  to  an  intelligent  and 
candid  public ;  to  be  decided  by  an  extended  compar- 
ison of  various  authors.  The  decision  has  been  made. 
Disinterested  observers,  whatever  may  be  their  creed, 
have  been  generally  forced  to  admit  that  there  are 
material  variations  in  faith  between  the  two  bodies. 
No  softening  words,  no  extenuating  pleas,  no  inge- 


INTRODUCTION.  13 

nious  explanations  can  make  the  two  systems  one  and 
the  same. 

But  though  we  dare  not  attempt  by  the  aid  of  nice, 
philosophical  distinctions,  to  make  those  differences 
appear  insignificant,  we  are  equally  indisposed  to 
magnify  their  importance  beyond  what  truth  and 
candour  require.  It  is  to  us  a  source  of  pain,  and  not 
of  pleasure,  to  record  the  errors  of  Christian  breth- 
ren ;  and  we  shall  be  sincerely  gratified  and  thankful 
to  God,  when  those  which  are  noticed  in  this  treatise 
shall  be  known  only  in  history. 


PREFACE 


TO  THE  FIRST  EDITION  IN  1838. 


In  numerous  instances  during  the  past  year,  the 
question  has  been  proposed  to  me,  "What  is  the 
difference  between  the  doctrinal  views  of  the  Old  and 
New-school?"  Though  several  books  and  pamphlets 
have  been  written  on  a  number  of  these  points,  and 
though  most  if  not  all  of  them  have  been  discussed 
at  various  times  in  our  periodicals,  there  are  many 
in  our  churches  who  are  not  sufficiently  informed  on 
the  subject,  particularly  in  those  sections  where  the 
new  doctrines  have  not  become  prevalent,  and  where 
but  few  publications  on  the  points  at  issue  have  been 
circulated.  Recent  occurrences  render  it  peculiarly 
important  that  all  in  our  connection  should  fully 
understand  the  merits  of  the  question.  It  has  now 
become  a  practical  one.  A  decision  is  now  being 
made  whether  we  will  continue  with  the  church  of 
our  former  choice,  or  unite  with  those  who,  without 
changing  their  name,  havo  organized  a  new  body. 
With  a  view  of  giving  information  to  such  as  desire 
to  ascertain  on  which  side  the  truth  lies,  we  shall 
present,  in  as  concise  a  manner  as  the  case  will 
admit,  the  distinguishing  features  of  the  New  The- 
ology— comparing  them,  as  we  proceed,  with  those 
doctrines  which  have,  by  way  of  contrast,  been 
denominated  Old,  For  the  sentiments  of  the  Old- 
school  we  shall  refer  to  the  Confession  of  Faith  of 


16  PREFACE 


the  Presbyterian  Church  and  to  standard  Calvinistic 
■writers.  We  think  this  cannot  be  reasonably  ob- 
jected to,  even  by  our  New-school  brethren;  since 
they  have  never  charged  the  former  with  departing 
from  the  Confession  of  Faith.  For  the  New-school 
doctrines,  we  shall  make  quotations  from  the  pro- 
fessors at  New  Haven,  Mr.  Finney,  and  various 
ministers  in  the  Presbyterian  Church.  We  quote 
from  those  first  named,  because  Dr.  Taylor  and  his 
associates,  though  belonging  to  another  denomination, 
are  regarded  as  the  mode7m  authors  of  these  specula- 
tions; and  Mr.  Finney,  until  within  a  few  years  past, 
belonged  to  our  body,  and  preached  and  published 
most  of  his  sentiments  on  these  subjects  before  he 
left  the  church. 

Some  of  the  new  doctrines  began  to  be  broached 
at  New  Haven  in  1821-22,  which  created  much 
dissatisfaction  in  the  minds  of  a  number  who  were 
made  acquainted  with  the  fact.  In  1826  Professor 
Fitch  published  his  Discourses  on  the  Nature  of  Sin, 
and  this  was  followed  by  a  series  of  communications 
in  the  Christian  Spectator,  on  the  Means  of  Regen- 
eration, The  former  were  reviewed  by  Dr.  Green 
in  the  Christian  Advocate,  and  the  latter  called  forth 
a  controversy  between  Dr.  Taylor  and  Dr.  Tyler. 
In  1828  Dr.  Taylor  delivered  his  Concio  ad  Clerum, 
which  was  the  cause  of  Dr.  Woods  writing  his  Letters 
addressed  to  Dr.  Taylor ;  and  the  whole  series  taken 
together  drew  from  Dr.  Griffin  his  Treatise  on  Divine 
Efficiency,  and  led  to  the  establishment  of  the  East 
Windsor  Theological  Seminary. 

Mr.  Finney,  who  was  hopefully  converted  and 
licensed  to  preach  a  few  years  previous,  became 
celebrated  as  an  evangelist  in  Western  New  York, 
in  1825-26.  Though  distinguished  at  first  rather 
by  "new  measures"  than  by  nev/  doctrines,  he  soon 
adopted  the  views  of  Dr.  Taylor;  and  he  has  proba- 


PREFACE.  17 

bly  done  more  to  give  them  currency  in  certain  sec- 
tions of  the  chm'cli  than  any  other  individual.  On 
some  points  he  has  gone  further  than  his  archetype; 
and  on  all  perhaps  has  expressed  himself  with  more 
frankness  and  less  caution — asserting  in  positive 
terms  what  the  former  taught  only  by  affirming  that 
the  contrary  could  not  be  proved.  His  lectures  and 
sermons  were  the  subject  of  animadversion  in  several 
periodicals;  and  as  I  happen  to  know,  a  certain 
minister  seriously  urged  one  of  his  (Mr.  Finney's) 
co-presbyters  to  commence  process  against  him ;  but 
nothing  of  this  kind,  I  believe,  was  ever  attempted. 

In  1829  Mr.  Barnes  preached  and  published  his 
Sermon  on  the  Way  of  Salvation;  which  disclosed 
the  fact  that  on  a  number  of  points  he  agreed  sub- 
stantially with  the  new  system ;  and  upon  his  being 
called,  some  months  afterwards,  to  a  pastoral  charge 
in  Philadelphia,  some  of  the  members  of  the  Philadel- 
phia Presbytery  objected  to  receiving  and  installing 
him,  on  the  ground  that  his  sermon,  which  had  been 
extensively  circulated  in  that  city,  contained  impor- 
tant errors  in  doctrine.  The  action  of  the  Presbytery, 
Synod,  and  General  Assembly,  in  1830-31,  the  pub- 
lication of  his  Notes  on  the  Romans  in  1835,  and  the 
charges  and  trials  for  heresy  during  that  and  the 
following  year,  are  too  familiar  to  all  connected 
with  our  church,  to  need  any  particular  notice. 
The  preceding  statements  have  been  made  merely 
to  show  the  coincidence  between  the  rise  and  pro- 
gress of  the  new  divinity  in  New  England  and  its 
commencement  and  extension  in  the  Presbyterian 
Church. 

It  has  been  said  that  the  controversy  in  the  Pres- 
byterian Church  does  not  respect  doctrines  at  all, 
except  as  a  secondary  thing.  Some  have  told  us  it 
is  a  strife  for  power — others  a  contest  for  the  purse 
— and  others  a  thrust  at  Congregationalism,  and 
2* 


18  PRETACE. 

througli  that  at  New  England.  With  whatever  view 
these  allegations  have  been  made,  the  effect  of  them 
has  been  to  produce  distrust  and  disunion  in  many 
cases  where  there  would  otherwise  have  been  a  hearty 
concurrence  in  most  if  not  all  of  the  measures  adopt- 
ed for  the  reform  of  the  church.  This  has  been  par- 
ticularly the  case  with  some  whose  partialities  are 
strong  in  favour  of  New  England.  It  would  seem 
that  such  had  forgotten  for  the  time,  that  in  New 
England  the  same  controversy  is  going  on  which  has 
agitated  and  ruptured  the  Presbyterian  Church.  If 
it  is  a  war  against  New  England,  how  does  it  happen 
that  many  of  their  ablest  theologians  have  taken  sides 
with  the  assailants  ?  nay,  that  they  were  first  in  rais- 
ing the  note  of  alarm?  The  language  of  Dr.  Green, 
in  1831,  undoubtedly  expresses  the  feelings  of  a 
large  majority,  if  not  of  all  the  ministers  in  the  Pres- 
byterian Church.  "'What!'  we  have  heard  it  said, 
even  by  some  who  love  us,  'What!  are  you  arraying 
yourselves  against  the  whole  Theology  of  New  Eng- 
land?' No — we  have  answered  privately,  and  now 
answer  publicly.  No — we  are  arraying  ourselves 
against  Taylorism,  and  Fitchism,  and  Murdochism, 
and  Emmonsism,  and  self-conversionism.  But  we 
thank  God,  this  is  not  'the  whole  theology  of  New 
England,'  and  w^e  hope  and  believe  it  never  will  be. 
We  know  that  there  is  a  host  of  men,  sound  in  the 
faith,  who  dislike  and  oppose  most  decidedly,  this 
whole  mass  of  error;  and  we  hail  these  men,  and 
love  them  as  fellow  labourers  in  the  cause  of  truth, 
and  bid  them  God  speed  with  all  our  hearts." 

Though  in  the  progress  of  the  difficulties  some 
prominence  has  been  given  of  late  to  Congregation- 
alism, it  was  only  from  the  circumstance  that  this 
was  believed  to  have  an  important  connection  with 
the  main  question  at  issue.  It  is  not  the  Congrega- 
tionalism of  New  England  that  was  the   subject  of 


PREFACE.  19 

discussion,  but  Congregationalism  in  the  Presbyte- 
rian Church.  Against  Congregationalism,  as  such, 
there  exists  no  hostility;  but  when,  through  the 
Plan  of  Union,  it  became  the  means,  like  the  Trojan 
horse,  of  introducing  into  our  body  many  who  were 
unfriendly  to  our  doctrines  and  government,  it  be- 
came necessary,  in  self-defence,  to  free  the  church 
from  this  improper,  and  to  us,  ruinous  condition.* 

The  same  remarks  are  applicable  to  the  resolutions 
of  the  General  Assembly  concerning  certain  benevo- 
lent societies.  Towards  the  American  Home  Mis- 
sionary Society  and  the  American  Education  Society, 
in  their  incipient  stages,  and  considered  merely  as 
organizations  for  doing  good,  there  was  for  a  number 
of  years  the  greatest  cordiality.  This  is  evident 
from  the  fact  that  they  were  repeatedly  recommended 
by  the  General  Assembly.  But  when  it  was  found 
that  their  operations  within  our  bounds,  besides  inter- 
fering with  the  free  action  of  our  own  Boards,  were 
made  the  instruments  in  the  hands  of  those  who 
managed  the  various  Presbyterian  auxiliaries,  of 
increasing  and  extending  our  difficulties,  and  render- 
ing them  more  unmanageable — the  one  by  furnishing 
young  men  for  our  pulpits  whose  sentiments  did  not 
accord  with  our  standards,  and  the  other  by  direct- 
ing and  sustaining  them  in  tlieir  fields  of  labour — the 
Assembly  of  1837  withdrew  their  former  recommen- 

*  According  to  the  statement  published  by  me,  as  corrected 
in  the  second  edition,  there  are  in  the  four  disowned  Synods 
three  hundred  and  thirty-four  churches  nominally  Presbyte- 
rian, and  two  hundred  and  eighty-six  Congregational.  A 
short  time  ago,  a  minister  who  was  then  a  member  of  the 
Otsego  Presbytery,  observed  to  me,  If  you  have  reported  as 
favourably  concerning  all  the  Presbyteries  as  you  have  con- 
cerning ours,  they  have  no  reason  to  complain.  Instead  of 
there  being  eight  Presbyterian  and  eight  Congregational 
churches  as  reported  by  me,  there  are,  he  said,  but  six  Pres- 
byterian churches  and  ten  Congregational. 


20  PREFACE. 

dations  and  requested  them  to  cease  operating  in  our 
churches.  As  in  their  action  concerning  the  Plan  of 
Union  and  the  four  Synods,  so  in  regard  to  these 
societies,  the  ground  of  their  proceedings  was,  that 
they  believed  them  to  be  (to  use  their  own  language) 
''  excedingly  injurious  to  the  peace  and  purity  of  the 
Presbyterian  church" — and  while  they  "hoped  and 
believed  that  the  Assembly  would  not  be  behind  the 
protesters,  [the  patrons  of  those  societies]  in  zeal  for 
the  spread  of  divine  truths  they  desire  that  in  carry- 
ing on  those  great  enterprises,  the  church  may  not  be 
misled  to  adopt  a  system  of  action  which  may  be 
perverted  to  the  spread  of  error." 

It  is  not  true,  therefore,  that  the  controversy  has 
little  or  no  respect  to  doctrines.  On  the  contrary, 
the  principal  and  primary  ground  of  it,  has  been  a 
discrepancy  in  doctrinal  sentiments.  Its  origin  may 
be  traced  to  the  opinion  so  prevalent  of  late,  among 
certain  classes  of  men,  that  we  ought  to  expect  as 
great  improvements  in  theology  as  have  been  made 
in  the  arts  and  sciences — that  those  formularies  of 
Christian  faith,  which  have  been  received  for  cen- 
turies as  containing  a  correct  statement  of  Scripture 
doctrine,  are  too  antiquated  for  this  enlightened  age ; 
and  if  received  now,  are  to  be  explained  agreeably 
to  certain  philosophical  principles  which  were  un- 
known in  the  days  of  our  ancestors — and  that  the 
Bible  itself  is  to  be  so  expounded  as  to  accord  with 
those  theories  of  mind,  of  free  agency,  and  of  moral 
government,  which  have  been  introduced  by  the  new 
philosophy.  It  is  this  which  gives  to* their  theology 
the  denomination  of  new.  Considered  chronologically, 
it  is  far  from  being  new.  Similar  sentiments  were 
advanced  on  most  of  the  points  in  dispute,  as  long 
ago  as  the  time  of  Pelagius,  and  they  have  sprung 
up  and  flourished  for  a  while  at  different  periods 
since.     Were  this  the  proper  place,  we  could  easily 


PREFACE.  21 

substantiate   this   remark   by  a   reference   to   docu- 
ments. 

The  principles  upon  which  these  modern  improve- 
ments in  theology  profess  to  be  based,  appear  to  me 
to  be  radically  erroneous.  If  the  doctrines  of  reli- 
gion were  as  difficult  to  be  discovered  by  a  diligent 
reader  of  the  sacred  Scriptures,  as  the  laws  and 
motions  of  the  heavenly  bodies  are  to  an  observer  of 
the  planets,  the  march  of  mind  might  be  expected 
to  be  as  visible  in  the  development  of  new  theological 
truths,  as  in  the  new  discoveries  of  astronomy.  But 
the  Bible,  I  have  always  supposed,  has  recorded  truth 
in  order  to  reveal  it;  and  not  to  place  it  so  far  beyond 
the  reach  of  common  observation,  as  to  require  the 
aid  of  a  telescope  to  enable  us  to  discern  its  cha- 
racter and  proportion.  Truth  is  immutable.  The^ 
Bible  is,  therefore,  not  to  be  interpreted  by  a  set  of 
philosophical  dogmas,  which  vary,  it  may  be,  with 
every  successive  age ;  but  by  a  careful  examination 
and  comparison  of  its  several  words  and  phrases. 
These  obvious  way-marks  were  the  same  in  the  time 
of  Augustine  and  Calvin,  and  the  Westminster  di- 
vines, as  they  are  now ;  and  it  is  by  a  faithful  adhe- 
rence to  these,  that  so  much  uniformity  has  been 
preserved  among  Christians  of  every  age,  in  regard 
to  the  doctrines  of  our  holy  religion.  Abstruse  meta- 
physical speculations  have  now  and  then  held  out 
their  false  lights,  and  led  portions  of  the  church  into 
error;  but  whenever  the  pride  of  intellect  and  learn- 
ing has  been  humbled  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  and 
there  has  been  a  return  to  that  simple-hearted  piety, 
which  is  willing  to  receive  the  plain  teachings  of  the 
Bible,  without  stopping  to  inquire  whether  they  are 
consistent  with  certain  new  modes  of  philosophizing, 
it  has  uniformly  resulted  in  the  revival  of  those  old 
and  venerable  doctrines,  which  have  been  the  stability 


22  PREFACE. 

and  glory  of  the  church  in  every  period  of  her  his- 
tory. 

We  do  not  intend  to  convey  the  idea  that  all  who 
are  now  denominated  New-school,  or  who  have  united 
in  organizing  the  new  Assembly,  embrace  the  new 
doctrines.  Various  reasons  have  operated  to  produce 
in  the  minds  of  some,  so  much  sympathy  for  those 
who  maintain  these  sentiments,  that  they  have  taken 
sides  with  them,  and  hence  have  received  their  name, 
though  they  disclaim  all  affinity  for  their  peculiar 
views.  Others  receive  the  new  divinity  in  a  modified 
form ;  and  a  third  class  adopt  some  of  its  dogmas, 
while  they  reject  others.  These  last  remarks  apply  to 
some  of  those  from  whose  productions  we  design  to 
make  extracts  in  the  following  pages. 

How  large  a  proportion  of  the  new  Assembly  embrace 
the  New  Theology,  we  will  not  undertake  to  say.  We 
might  state  a  number  of  facts,  which  appear  to  show 
that  it  is  adopted,  at  least,  "/or  substance  of  doctrine,'' 
by  a  very  considerable  majority.  On  the  contrary, 
there  are  some  who  have  expressed  opposition  to  these 
doctrines,  but  who  have  been  influenced,  it  is  probable, 
by  their  local  situation,  or  their  connections  and  sym- 
pathies, to  join  the  new  body.  Our  earnest  wish  is, 
that  they  may  exert  a  happy  influence.  We  have  no 
malignant  feelings  to  gratify — but  shall  rejoice  to 
know  that  every  error  has  been  corrected,  every 
ground  of  complaint  removed,  that  as  a  body,  they 
may  regain  that  Christian  confidence,  to  which  a 
few  of  their  number  are  now  so  justly  entitled.  It 
is  to  be  deeply  regretted,  that  in  one  or  two  things 
they  would  not  pursue  a  difi"erent  course.  Twelve 
months  ago,  a  committee  appointed  by  that  party, 
consented  to  take  another  name,  and  to  leave  their 
brethren  of  the  Old-school  in  the  quiet  possession  of 
their  records,  board  of  trustees,  and  certain  invested 
funds.     An  amicable  division  would   doubtless  have 


PREFACE.  23 

taken  place  at  that  time,  had  it  not  been  for  the  fact 
that  the  committee  from  the  New-school  party,  though 
they  consented  to  the  above  reasonable  terms,  insisted 
upon  such  other  conditions  as  could  not  be  acceded  to 
•without  jeoparding  those  very  interests  for  the  securing 
of  which  a  division  had  become  necessary.  Hence  the 
negotiation  failed.  But  now  they  claim  to  be  the  true 
General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  and 
have  appealed  to  the  civil  courts  to  wrest,  if  possible, 
from  the  hands  of  their  brethren,  what,  they  virtually 
acknowledged  a  year  ago,  does  not  belong  in  equity 
to  themselves,  but  to  those  whom  they  have  thus  as- 
sailed. Such  a  procedure  seems  to  us  grossly  impro- 
per, as  well  as  inconsistent.  It  is  to  be  hoped,  how- 
ever, that  on  further  reflection,  they  will  be  induced 
to  retrace  their  steps  and  pursue  a  course  more  agree- 
able to  their  former  professions  and  to  the  spirit  of 
the  gospel. 

But  while  we  do  not  doubt  that  these  suits,  if  pro- 
secuted, will  be  decided  in  favour  of  the  defendants, 
provided  law  and  justice  do  not  conflict  with  each 
other,  we  wish  to  remind  the  reader  that  the  ques- 
tion, which  body  is  the  true  General  Assembly^  does 
not  depend  upon  any  decision  which  is  to  be  made  by 
the  civil  courts.  They  can  decide  who  shall  have  the 
funds;  but  beyond  this  their  jurisdiction  does  not 
extend.  The  General  Assembly  was  organized  ten 
years  before  they  had  a  board  of  trustees ;  and  their 
organization  was  as  complete  during  that  time  as  it 
was  afterwards.  It  had  then  its  constitution — and 
this  constitution,  be  it  remembered,  makes  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly,  and  not  a  civil  court,  the  body  of 
final  resort  in  all  cases  of  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction. 
This  board  of  trustees  was  incorporated  for  the  pur- 
pose of  managing  certain  funds  in  behalf  of  the 
Assembly,  and  for  nothing  else.  If  their  charter 
had  been  a  limited  one,  its  expiration  would  not  have 


24  PREFACE. 

affected  the  cliaracter  of  the  General  Assembly;  and 
if  it  shall  be  taken  away,  the  only  result  which  can 
follow,  will  be  to  deprive  them  of  their  funds;  but  as 
an  ecclesiastical  body,  they  remain  unimpaired.  If 
they  w^re  the  true  General  Assembly  in  1789,  and 
for  the  ten  following  years  before  their  charter  was 
obtained,  they  are  the  true  General  Assembly  now, 
"whatever  becomes  of  their  property. 

Though  we  shall  be  gratified  to  have  them  succeed 
in  this  respect,  we  regard  the  result  of  these  suits  as 
of  little  importance  compared  with  other  matters 
■which  have  been  involved  in  the  controversy,  but 
which  we  trust  are  now  finally  settled.  In  regard  to 
the  question  of  property,  we  feel  very  much  like  a 
native  Christian  of  the  South  Sea  Islands  who  had 
lost  his  house  by  fire,  and  who  in  the  act  of  rushing 
into  the  flames  to  secure  a  copy  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, was  severely  scorched  by  the  conflagration. 
As  the  missionaries  were  condoling  with  him  on  the 
loss  of  his  house,  he  put  his  hand  under  his  gar- 
ment, and  taking  out  the  sacred  treasure  which  he 
had  saved,  exclaimed  with  ecstacy,  "  True,  I  have  lost 
my  property,  but  I  have  saved  my  gospels !"  We 
may  lose  our  property  before  the  civil  tribunals; 
but  if  we  have  saved  our  "gospels,"  we  shall  be  infi- 
nite gainers,  and  ought  therefore  to  "take  joyfully 
the  spoiling  of  our  goods."  These  remarks  are  made 
in  view  of  the  prominence  given  in  the  New-school 
prints  to  a  judicial  decision:  but  we  are  far  from 
believing  that  any  professional  ingenuity  or  legal 
skill  will  be  able  to  procure  such  a  result  as  they 
anticipate;  even  should  they  venture  to  bring  the 
question  to  trial. 


OLD  AND  NEW  THEOLOGY, 


CHAPTER  I. 

THE    CHARACTER    AND    GOVERNMENT    OF    GOD. 

In  New  England,  tlie  controversy  on  the  subject  of 
the  present  chapter  embraces  some  propositions  which 
have  never  been  much  discussed  in  the  Presbyterian 
church,  and  concerning  which  the  great  majority  of 
our  ministers,  we  believe,  have  not  expressed  a  decided 
opinion.  We  refer  to  the  following,  which  we  give  in 
the  language  of  Dr.  Tyler:  *'Dr.  Taylor  maintains, 
contrary  to  my  belief,  that  the  existence  of  sin  is  not, 
on  the  whole,  for  the  best;  and  that  a  greater  amount 
of  good  would  have  been  secured  had  all  God's  crea- 
tures remained  holy,  than  will  result  from  the  present 
system."  Again:  *'Dr.  Taylor  maintains,  contrary 
to  my  belief,  that  God,  all  things  considered,  prefers 
holiness  to  sin,  in  all  instances  in  which  the  latter 
takes  place."  It  has  been  a  common  sentiment  among 
New  England  divines,  since  the  time  of  Edwards, 
"that  sin  is  the  necessary  means  of  the  greatest 
good,  and  as  such,  so  far  as  it  exists,  is  preferable, 
on  the  whole,  to  holiness  in  its  stead."  The  senti- 
ment is  founded  upon  what  has  been  denominated  the 
3 


2G  THEORY   OF   LEIBNITZ. 

Beltlstian  Theory;  which,  it  is  said,  was  first  taught 
by  Leibnitz,  about  the  commencement  of  the  last 
century.  This  theory  maintains,  that  "of  all  possible 
systems,  God,  infinitely  wise  and  good,  must  adopt 
that  which  is  best.  The  present  system,  therefore, 
is  preferable  to  every  other;  and  since  sin  is  a  part 
of  the  system,  "its  existence  is,  on  the  whole,  for  the 
best."  Not  that  "sin  must  be  good  in  itself,''  as  Dr. 
Taylor  disingenuously  insinuates  that  they  hold — 
this  is  no  part  of  their  belief — but  that  God  will  so 
overrule  it,  for  the  promotion  of  his  glory  and  the 
happiness  of  the  universe,  "that  a  greater  amount  of 
good  will  result  from  the  present  system,  than  would 
have  been  secured  had  all  God's  creatures  remained 
holy."*  Concerning  the  principle  of  Leibnitz,  from 
which  these  conclusions  are  drawn,  Dr.  Witherspoon 
remarks:  "This  scheme  seems  to  me  to  labour 
under  two  great  and  obvious  difficulties — that  the 
infinite  God  should  set  limits  to  himself,  by  the 
production  of  a  created  system — it  brings  creation 
a  great  deal  too  near  the  Creator  to  say  it  is  the 
alternative  of  Omnipotence.  The  other  difficulty  is, 
that  it  seems  to  make  something  which  I  do  not 
know  how  to  express  otherwise  than  by  the  ancient 
stoical  fate,  antecedent  and  superior  even  to  God 
himself.  I  would  therefore  think  it  best  to  say, 
with  the  current  of  orthodox  divines,  that  God  was 

*  New  England  optimism,  as  it  is  sometimes  denominated, 
arises  from  the  theory  that  virtue  consists  in  benevolence — 
or  that  the  tendency  of  holiness  to  produce  happiness,  is  that 
which  gives  it  its  chief,  if  not  its  only  excellence. 


REMARKS   OF   DR.    WITHERSPOON.  27 

perfectly  free  in  his  purpose  and  providence,  and  that 
there  is  no  reason  to  be  sought  for  the  one  or  the 
other  beyond  himself." 

Admitting,  then,  that  there  was  no  necessiti/  on 
the  part  of  the  Creator  to  form  one  particular  system 
rather  than  another,  it  becomes  merely  a  question  of 
fact,  whether  more  good  will  result  to  the  universe 
from  the  existence  of  sin,  all  things  considered,  than 
would  have  been  secured  if  sin  had  never  been  per- 
mitted. To  this  question,  most  of  the  ministers  in 
our  church,  we  are  disposed  to  think,  would  reply 
by  saying,  "We  cannot  tell."  All  agree  that  "the 
existence  of  sin  under  the  divine  government  is  a 
profound  mystery ;"  and  also  that  God  will  make  use 
of  it  to  display  some  of  his  illustrious  perfections; 
and  to  communicate  to  his  creatures  rich  and  eternal 
blessings.  But  whether  he  might  not  have  formed 
a  system,  if  it  had  been  his  pleasure,  by  which  his 
glory  would  have  been  still  more  displayed,  and  a  still 
greater  amount  of  happiness  secured  to  his  creatures, 
it  is  not  our  province  to  decide.  As  he  has  no  where 
told  us  that  he  has  made  the  best  system  possible, 
and  as  we  cannot  perceive  that  his  infinite  goodness 
required  him  to  do  it,  we  are  disposed  to  leave  the 
question  to  be  contemplated  and  solved,  (if  a  solution 
be  desirable,)  when  we  shall  have  the  advantage  of 
that  expansion  of  mind,  that  increase  of  knowledge, 
and  that  interchange  of  sentiment  with  other  created 
beings,  which  we  shall  enjoy  in  the  heavenly  world. 

But  while  in  regard  to  these  propositions  we  ex- 
press no  opinion,  we  consider  the  reasoning  of  Dr. 


28  QUOTATIONS  FROM  DR.  TAYLOR. 

Taylor  in  attempting  to  refute  them  as  involving 
pernicious  errors.  It  is  on  this  account  that  we 
have  introduced  the  subject  in  the  present  volume. 
Pressed  with  the  difficulty  that  if  sin  under  the  divine 
government  will  not  on  the  whole  be  for  the  best, 
why  did  God  permit  it?  he  has  taken  the  bold,  not 
to  say  the  impious  ground,  that  God  did  all  he  could 
to  prevent  the  existence  of  sin,  but  could  not,  without 
infringing  on  the  moral  agency  of  man — and  that  he 
would  make  the  world  holier  and  happier  now  if  he 
could,  without  abridging  human  liberty. 

His  language  on  this  subject  is  as  follows:  "It 
will  not  be  denied  that  free  moral  agents  can  do 
wrong  under  every  possible  influence  to  prevent  it. 
The  possibility  of  a  contradiction  in  supposing  them 
to  be  prevented  from  doing  wrong,  is  therefore 
demonstrably  certain.  Free  moral  agents  can  do 
wrong  under  all  possible  preventing  influence." — 
Christian  Spectator,  Sept.  1830,  p.  563.* 

"But  in  our  view  it  is  a  question  whether  it  is  not 
essential  to  the  honour  of  God  to  suppose  that  he  has 
done  all  he  could  to  secure  the  universal  holiness  of 
his  accountable  creatures;  and  that  nevertheless, 
some,  in  defiance  of  it,  would  rebel.  Such  a  propo- 
sition we  think  neither  violates  the  feelings  of  enlight- 
ened piety,  nor  the  decision  of  revelation." — Chris- 
tian Spectator,  1832,  p.  567. 

"  God   not   only   prefers   on   the   whole   that   his 

*  As  I  have  not  all  the  numbers  of  the  Christian  Spectator 
in  my  possession,  I  shall,  in  my  quotations  from  that  work, 
make  free  use  of  a  pamphlet  written  by  the  Rev.  Daniel  Dow. 


QUOTATION    FROM    MR.    FINNEY.  29 

creatures  should  for  ever  perform  their  duties  rather 
than  neglect  them,  but  purposes  on  his  part  to  do  all 
in  his  power  to  promote  this  object  in  his  kingdom." 
— ^Christian  Spectator^  1832,  p.  660. 

"  It  is  a  groundless  assumption,  that  God  could 
have  prevented  all  sin,  or  at  least,  the  present  degree 
of  sin  in  a  moral  system.  If  holiness  in  a  moral  sys- 
tem be  preferable  to  sin  in  its  stead,  why  did  not  a 
benevolent  God,  were  it  possible  to  him,  prevent  all 
sin,  and  secure  the  prevalence  of  universal  holiness? 
Would  not  a  moral  universe  of  perfect  holiness,  and 
of  course  perfect  happiness,  be  happier  and  better 
than  one  comprising  'sin  and  its  miseries?'  And 
must  not  infinite  benevolence  accomplish  all  the  good 
he  can?  Would  not  a  benevolent  God,  then,  had  it 
been  possible  to  him  in  the  nature  of  things,  have 
secured  the  existence  of  universal  holiness  in  his 
moral  kingdom?"     Concio  ad  Clerum. 

It  is  not  surprising  that  the  publication  of  such 
sentiments  created  alarm  among  the  orthodox  clergy 
of  New  England ;  and  that  speedy  efforts  were  made 
to  arrest  their  progress. 

Unhappily,  they  soon  found  their  way  to  New 
York,  and  through  the  agency  of  Mr.  Finney  and 
others,  obtained  considerable  currency.  Mr.  Fin- 
ney's views  will  appear  from  the  following  quotation. 
In  reply  to  an  objection  that  as  God  "  is  almighty,  he 
could  prevent  sin  if  he  pleased,"  &c.,  he  observes: 
*'  To  say  nothing  of  his  word  and  oath  upon  this  sub- 
ject, you  have  only  to  look  into  his  law  to  see  that  he 
has  done  all  that  the  nature  of  the  case  admitted  to 
3* 


30  QUOTATIONS   FROM    MR.  TYLER. 

prevent  the  existence  of  sin.  The  sanctions  of  his 
law  are  absolutely  infinite:  in  them  he  has  embodied 
and  held  forth  the  highest  possible  motives  to  obe- 
dience. His  law  is  moral  and  not  physical ;  a  gov- 
ernment of  motive  and  not  of  force.  It  is  in  vain  to 
talk  of  his  omnipotence  preventing  sin.  If  infinite 
motives  cannot  prevent  it,  it  cannot  be  prevented 
under  a  moral  government,  and  to  maintain  the  con- 
trary is  absurd  and  a  contradiction.  To  administer 
moral  laws  is  not  the  object  of  physical  power.  To 
maintain,  therefore,  that  the  physical  omnipotence  of 
God  can  prevent  sin,  is  to  talk  nonsense." — Sermons 
on  Important  Subjects,  p.  58. 

Similar  language  is  employed  by  him  and  other 
writers  of  the  same  school  with  reference  to  the  power 
of  God  to  convert  sinners,  and  to  make  the  world 
holier  and  happier  than  it  now  is.  Mr.  Edward  R. 
Tyler  [not  Dr.  Tyler]  preached  a  sermon  at  New 
Haven,  Oct.  1829,  (published  by  request,)  in  which 
occur  the  following  sentences:"^  "He  [God]  does 
not  prefer  the  present  system  to  one  which  might 
have  presented  itself  to  his  choice,  had  it  been  possi- 
ble to  retain  all  moral  beings  in  obedience;  but  pre- 
fers it  to  the  non-existence  of  a  moral  system,  not- 
withstanding sin  is  its  unavoidable  attjendant."  "  The 
7iature  of  things,  as  they  now  exist,  forbids,  as  far  as 
God  himself  is  concerned,  the  more  frequent  existence 
of  holiness  in  the  place  of  sin.  Hoio  do  you  knoiv 
that  the  influence  which  He  employs,  even  in  respect 

*  Mr.  Tyler  was  at  that  time  Pastor  of  the  South  Church  in 
Middletown,  Conn. 


VIEWS   OF  PROFESSOR  FITCH.  81 

to  those  who  perish,  is  not  all  which  the  nature  of  the 
case  admits  f     How  do  you  know  that  he  can  main- 
tain his  moral  government,  or  preserve  moral  agents 
in  being  as  such,  and  prevent  sin  ?     Do  you  not  pass 
the  boundaries  of  human  knowledge  in  saying  that 
he   is   able   to  prevent   all  sin,   while  he  preserves, 
unimpaired,    the    freedom    of    accountable    beings? 
Such  may  be  the  nature  of  free  agents  that  they  can- 
not be  governed  in  a  manner  to  exclude  sin,  or  to 
restrict  it  to  a  smaller  co77tpass  than  it  actually  pos- 
sesses.''    "Such  is  the  nature  of  free  agents,  that 
God  foresaw  he  could  not  create  them  without  liability 
to  err  and  actual  transgression.     He   knew  at  the 
same  time,   that  the  best   possible  system  included 
such  beings;  that  is,  beings  capable  of  knowing  and 
loving  him.     He  regretted,  as  he  abundantly  teaches 
us  in  his  word,  that  some  of  those  whom  he  was 
about  to  create  would  sin.     Had  it  been  possible  to 
secure  them  all  in  obedience,  more  happiness  would 
have  been  enjoyed  by  his  creatures,  and  equal  glory 
would  have  surrounded  his  own  throne.    But  although 
the  system  which  he  saw  to  be  best,  could  not  be 
realized  in  consequence  of  the  anticipated  perversion 
of  moral  agency,  he  perceived  a  system   such  as  he 
has  adopted,  notwithstanding  the  evil  attending  it,  to 
be   preferable   to    any  which   should   exclude  moral 
beings."     "It  is  to  him  a  subject  of  regret  and  grief, 
yet  men  transgress ;  they  rebel  in  spite  of  his  wishes ; 
thet/  persevere  in  sin  in  spite  of  all  which  he  can  do 
to  reclaim  them,'' 

A  writer  in  the  Christian  Spectator  [believed  to  be 


32  REMARK   or  MR.    BEECHER. 

Professor  Fitch,]  advances  the  same  ideas.  "What- 
ever degree  or  kind  of  influence"  says  he,  "is  used 
with  them,  to  favour  their  return  to  him,  at  any  given 
time,  IB  as  strongly  favourable  to  their  conversion  as 
it  CAN  he  made  amid  the  obstacles  which  a  world  of 
guilty  and  rebellious  moral  agents  opioose  to  God's 
works  of  grace.'' — "Review  of  Dr.  Fisk's  Discourse 
on  Predestination  and  Election." 

In  accordance  with  these  sentiments,  it  was  not 
uncommon,  a  few  years  ago,  in  some  parts  of  New 
York,  to  hear  from  the  pulpit  and  in  the  lecture- 
room,  that  God  is  doing  all  he  can  to  convert  and 
save  sinners — that  if  he  could,  he  w^ould  convert 
many  more  than  he  does — that  he  converts  as  many 
as  he  can  persuade  to  yield  their  hearts  to  him — and 
other  expressions  to  the  same  effect.  Of  very  similar 
import  is  the  remark  attributed  to  a  son  of  Dr. 
Beecher,  which,  according  to  the  Hartford  Christian 
Watchman,  was  one  cause  of  Dr.  Porter's  anxiety  in 
relation  to  the  father — it  having  been  reported  that 
he  approved  of  the  sentiment,  viz.  "that  though  God 
is  physically  omnipotent,  he  has  not  acquired  moral 
power  enough  to  govern  the  universe  according  to  his 
will." 

How  different  these  statements  are  from  the  old 
theology,  will  appear  by  a  reference  to  the  Confes- 
sion of  Faith;  which  teaches  that  God  "hath  most 
sovereign  dominion  over  his  creatures,  to  do  by  them, 
for  them,  and  upon  them,  whatsoever  himself  pleaseth" 
— that  he  is  "Almighty,  most  absolute,  working  all 
things  according  to  the  counsel  of  his  own  immutable 


god's  happiness  diminished.  33 

and  most  righteous  "will,  for  his  own  glory."  They 
are  equally  at  variance  with  the  word  of  God,  which 
declares  that  "he  doeth  according  to  his  will  in  the 
army  of  heaven,  and  among  the  inhabitants  of  the 
earth;  and  none  can  stay  his  hand,  or  say  unto  him, 
What  doest  thou?" 

The  positions  assumed  by  Dr.  Taylor  and  others, 
besides  being  unscriptural,  are  believed  by  many  to 
involve  principles  which  are  subversive  of  some  im- 
portant Scripture  doctrines.  They  place  such  limits 
upon  the  power  of  God,  as  to  be  a  virtual  denial  of 
his  omnipotence.  They  make  him  so  dependent  upon 
his  creatures,  as  to  render  him  liable  to  disappoint- 
ment^ and  consequently  to  a  diminution  of  his  happi- 
ness. Dr.  Taylor,  or  one  of  his  friends,  admits  that 
his  blessedness  has  been  diminished  by  the  existence 
of  sin.  "It  is  admitted  that  what  men  have  done  to 
impair  the  blessedness  of  God  by  sin,  has  not  failed 
of  its  results  in  the  actual  diminution  of  his  blessed- 
ness, compared  with  what  it  had  been,  had  they 
obeyed  his  perfect  law." — Spirit  of  the  Pilgrims, 
Vol.  V.  p.  693.  Mr.  Tyler,  who  has  just  been  re- 
ferred to,  makes  the  same  admission.  "  This  doc- 
trine," he  remarks,  "is  said  to  be  inconsistent  with 
the  happiness  of  God.  And  we  admit,  that  as  far  as 
his  happiness  is  affected  by  the  conduct  of  his  crea- 
tures, he  would  have  been  better  pleased  had  angels 
and  men  always  remained  steadfast  in  his  fear  and 
service." 

They  involve  a  denial  of  the  divine  decrees — for  if 
God  does  not  possess  such  absolute  control  over  his 


34  DECREES   AND   ELECTION   DENIED. 

creatures  that  he  can  govern  them  according  to  his 
pleasure,  how  could  he  have  decreed  any  thing  uncon- 
ditionally concerning  them,  since   it  might  happen, 
that  in  the  exercise  of  their  free  agency,  they  would 
act  contrary  to  the  divine  purpose?     On  the  same 
principle  they  virtually  reject  the  Calvinistic  doctrine 
of  election,  and  make  election  depend  upon  the  fore- 
knowledge of  God  and  the  will  of  the  creature.     This 
is  actually  the  way  in  which  Mr.  Finney  explains  the 
doctrine.     *' The   elect,    then,"    says   he,   "must  be 
those  who  God  foresaw  could  be  converted  under  the 
wisest  administration  of  his  government.     That  ad- 
ministering it  in  a  way  that  would  be  most  beneficial 
to  all  worlds,  exerting  such  an  amount  of  moral  influ- 
ence on  every  individual  as  would  result,  on  the  whole, 
in  the  greatest  good  to  his  divine  kingdom,  he  fore- 
saw that  certain  individuals  could,  with  this  wisest 
amount  of  moral  influence,  be  reclaimed  and  sancti- 
fied, and  for  this  reason,  they  were  chosen  to  eternal 
life."    "The  elect  were  chosen  to  eternal  life,  because 
God  foresaw  that  in  the  perfect  exercise  of  their  free- 
dom they  could  be  induced  to  repent  and  embrace  the 
gospel."      "In  choosing  his  elect,  you  must  under- 
stand that  he  has  thrown  the  responsibility  of  their 
being  saved  upon  them :  that  the  whole  is  suspended 
upon  their  consent  to  the  terms ;  you  are  perfectly 
able  to  give  your  consent,  and  this  moment  to  lay 
hold  on  eternal  life.    Irrespective  of  your  own  choice, 
no   election   can   save  you,  and  no  reprobation  can 
damn  you." — Sermons  on  Important  Subjects,  p.  224, 
25,  20,  33.     Mr.  Tyler,  from  whose  sermon  we  have 


DENIAL   OP   saints'    PERSEVERANCE.  35 

already  quoted,  gives  the  same  explanation  of  this 
doctrine,  or,  in  other  words,  virtually  denies  it. 
*'God  foresees,"  he  observes,  "whom  he  can  make 
willing  in  the  day  of  his  power,  and  resolves  that 
they  shall  be  saved."  Prof.  Fitch  also  advances  the 
same  idea  in  his  review  of  Dr.  Fisk's  discourses  on 
Predestination  and  Election,  in  the  Christian  Spec- 
tator. 

The  same  remarks  may  be  made,  substantially, 
concerning  the  saints'  perseverance,  and  even  their 
stability  in  heaven.  If  the  free  will  of  sinners  may 
effectually  resist  all  the  influence  which  God  can 
use  for  their  conversion,  why  may  not  the  free  will  of 
Christians,  under  the  counter  influence  of  temptation, 
break  through  all  the  moral  influences  which  God  can 
bring  to  bear  upon  them,  and  they  completely  and 
eternally  fall  away?  And  if  so,  why  may  not  the 
same  catastrophe  befall  them  after  they  arrive  at 
heaven?  To  borrow  the  language  of  Dr.  Tyler: 
"If  his  creatures  are  so  independent  of  him  that  he 
cannot  control  them  at  pleasure,  what  assurance  can 
he  give  us  that  every  saint  and  every  angel  will  not 
yet  apostatize  and  spread  desolation  through  the 
moral  universe?" 

Horrible  as  this  thought  is,  it  appears  to  be  a 
legitimate  consequence  from  the  reasoning  of  the 
New  Haven  divines.  "But  this  possibility  that  moral 
agents  will  sin,  remains  (suppose  what  else  you  will) 
so  long  as  moral  agency  remains;  and  how  can  it  be 
proved  that  a  thing  will  not  be,  when,  for  aught  that 
appears,  it  may  be?     When  in  view  of  all  the  facts 


36  REMARKS   FROM   A  PERIODICAL. 

and  evidence  in  the  case  it  remains  true  that  it  may 
be,  what  evidence  or  proof  can  exist  that  it  will  not 
IqV^^CIu  Spec,  1830,  p.  563.  Again:  "We  know 
that  a  moral  system  necessarily  implies  the  existence 
of  free  agents,  with  the  power  to  act  in  despite  of  all 
opposing  power.  This  fact  sets  human  reason  at 
defiance  in  every  attempt  to  prove  that  some  of  these 
agents  will  not  use  that  power  and  actually  sin." 
Ch.  Spec,  1831,  p.  617.  If,  then,  the  saints  and 
angels  in  heaven  are  ''free  agents,''  they  have, 
according  to  the  above  reasoning,  "the  power  to 
act  in  despite  of  all  opposing  power,"  and  it  cannot 
be  proved  "that  some  of  these  agents  will  not  use 
that  power  and  actually  sin." 

On  this  subject  we  will  quote  some  pertinent  re- 
marks from  "Views  in  Theology,"  a  periodical  pub- 
lished in  New  York.  "It  is  as  true  of  angels  and 
the  spirits  of  just  men  made  perfect,  that  they  are 
moral  agents,  and  that  their  powers  are  the  same  in 
kind  that  are  known  to  originate  sin,  as  it  is  of  us ; 
as  clear  that  if  God  *  should  begin  and  pursue  any 
method  of  providence  and  government'  over  them, 
*  the  causes  which  originate  sin  would  still  exist  in 
kind,  under  his  providence,'  as  it  is,  that  they 
would  among  men;  and  *  since  under  any  system 
of  providence,  the  condition  of  his  creatures  must 
be  constantly  changing;'  as  clear,  therefore — if  the 
powers  of  moral  agency  alone  be  considered — Hhat 
among  these  fluctuations,  there  may  arise  conjunctures 
under  any  providence,  in  which  temptations  will  rise 
and  prevail  to  the  overthrow  of  some  of  those  crea- 


REMARKS  OP  DR.    GRIFFIN.  37 

tures,'  as  it  is  that  they  may,  under  any  providence, 
over  such  beings  as  ourselves. 

"On  the  principles,  then,  on  which  his  reasoning 
proceeds,  we  not  only  have  no  certainty  of  the  con- 
tinued obedience  of  holy,  angelic,  and  redeemed 
spirits,  but  have  an  absolute  probability  of  their 
universally  yielding  to  rebellion  at  some  period  of 
their  existence,  notwithstanding  every  species  and 
degree  of  preventing  influence  that  God  can  exert 
over  them!" 

To  these,  we  will  add  the  following  from  Dr. 
Griffin:  "If  God  could  not  have  prevented  sin  in  all 
worlds  and  ages,  he  cannot  prevent  sin  in  any  world 
or  age,  or  in  any  creature  at  any  time,  except  by 
preventing  the  particular  occasion  and  temptation. 
If  God  could  not  have  prevented  sin  in  the  universe, 
he  cannot  prevent  believers  from  fatally  falling;  he 
cannot  prevent  Gabriel  and  Paul  from  sinking  at 
once  into  devils,  and  heaven  from  turning  into  a  hell. 
And  were  he  to  create  new  races  to  fill  the  vacant 
seats,  they  might  turn  to  devils  as  fast  as  he  created 
them,  in  spite  of  any  thing  that  he  could  do  short  of 
destroying  their  moral  agency.  He  is  liable  to  be 
defeated  in  all  his  designs,  and  to  be  as  miserable  as 
he  is  benevolent.  This  is  infinitely  the  gloomiest 
idea  that  was  ever  thrown  upon  the  world.  It  is 
gloomier  than  hell  itself.  For  this  involves  only  the 
destruction  of  a  part,  but  that  involves  the  wretch- 
edness of  God  and  his  whole  creation.  And  how 
awfully  gloomy  as  it  respects  the  prospects  of  indi- 
vidual believers!  You  have  no  security  that  you 
4 


38  PRACTICAL   EFFECTS   OF   THE   NEW   VIEWS. 

shall  stand  an  hour.  And  even  if  you  get  to  heaven, 
you  have  no  certainty  of  remaining  there  a  day.  All 
is  doubt  and  sepulchral  gloom.  And  where  is  the 
glory  of  God?  Where  the  transcendent  glory  of 
raising  to  spiritual  life  a  world  dead  in  trespasses 
and  sins?  Where  the  glory  of  swaying  an  undivided 
sceptre,  and  doing  his  whole  pleasure  *in  the  army 
of  heaven  and  among  the  inhabitants  of  the  earth?"* 
—  Griffin  on  Divine  Efficiency^  pp.  180,  181. 

The  practical  influence  of  these  assumptions  is 
believed  to  be  no  less  objectionable  than  their  ten- 
dencies to  error. 

1.  In  relation  to  prayer.  If  we  adopt  the  princi- 
ple that  God  has  not  supreme  control  over  the  hearts 
of  all  men,  how  can  we  with  confidence  plead  the 
fulfilment  of  those  promises  which  are  to  be  accom- 
plished by  the  instrumentality  of  his  creatures? 
However  willing  he  may  be  to  answer  our  prayers, 
there  may  be  found  among  the  various  agents  to  be 
employed,  some  Pharaoh,  so  much  more  obstinate 
than  the  king  of  Egypt,  that  no  influence  which  God 
can  employ,  will  incline  him  to  let  his  people  go — 
or  some  Ahithophel,  so  much  more  sagacious  and 
influential  than  the  counsellor  of  Absalom,  that  the 
Lord  will  not  be  able  to  "turn  his  counsel  to  fool- 
ishness," and  bring  back  his  own  anointed  to  the 
throDC  of  Israel. 

2.  If  we  believe  ourselves  so  independent  of  God, 
that  we  can  successfully  resist  any  moral  influence 
which  he  can  bring  to  bear  upon  our  minds,  how  feeble 
will  be  the  incentives  to  the  exercise  of  humility! 


PRACTICAL  EFFECTS   OF   THE   NEW   VIEWS.  39 

Tell  a  carnal,  unregenerate  man,  that  though  God 
had  physical  power  to  create  him,  he  has  not  moral 
power  to  govern  him,  and  you  could  not  furnish  his 
mind  with  better  aliment  for  pride  and  rebellion. 
Should  you,  after  giving  this  lesson,  press  upon  him 
the  claims  of  Jehovah,  you  might  expect  to  be 
answered,  as  Moses  was  by  the  proud  oppressor  of 
Israel:  "Who  is  the  Lord,  that  I  should  obey  his 
voice?" 

3.  The  same  may  be  said  in  regard  to  submission. 
Of  this,  the  case  just  referred  to  affords  an  ample 
illustration.  What  a  miserable  reflection  it  would 
have  been  to  present  to  an  enslaved  Israelite,  that 
he  ought  to  submit  cheerfully  to  his  bondage,  because 
it  was -not  in  the  power  of  the  Lord  to  prevent  it! 
Men  are  free  agents :  in  the  exercise  of  that  agency, 
your  ancestors  would  settle  themselves  in  Egypt — 
and  in  the  exercise  of  the  same  agency,  the  Egyp- 
tians would  enslave  them!  God  hnew  that  such 
would  be  the  result,  and  he  would  have  hindered  it  if 
he  could,  but  could  not,  without  destroying  their  free 
agency!  "Free  moral  agents  can  do  wrong  under 
every  possible  influence  to  prevent  it." 

4.  Such  reflections  afford  as  little  foundation  for 
gratitude  as  for  submission.  Why  do  we  feel  grate- 
ful to  God  for  those  favours  which  are  conferred 
upon  us  by  the  agency  of  our  fellow  men,  except  on 
the  principle  that  they  are  only  instruments  in  Jiis 
hand — who,  without  "offering  the  least  violence  to 
their  wills,  or  taking  away  the  liberty  or  contingency 
of  second  causes,"  "hath  most  sovereign  dominion 


40  DIFFERENCE   NOT   IMAGINARY  BUT  REAL. 

over  them,  to  do  by  them,  for  them,  and  upon  them, 
whatsoever  himself  pleaseth!"  On  any  other  ground, 
they  would  be  worthy  of  the  principal,  and  he  only 
of  secondary  praise. 

In  conclusion,  we  will  observe,  (adopting  the  lan- 
guage of  the  "Views  in  Theology,"  already  referred 
to,)  "The  great  questions  involved  in  this  contro- 
versy, it  is  sufficiently  apparent  from  the  foregoing 
discussion,  are  not  of  mere  ordinary  interest,  but 
vitally  important ;  and  the  decisions  that  are  formed 
respecting  them  by  the  teachers  of  religion,  must 
exert  a  momentous  influence  on  the  churches  and 
religion  of  our  country.  The  subjects  to  which  they 
relate — the  attributes  of  God,  the  reality  and  nature 
of  his  government,  the  doctrines  of  his  word,  the 
nature  of  the  mind,  the  laws  of  its  agency,  the  causes 
that  influence  it — if  any  are  entitled  to  that  rank, 
are  fundamental:  and  the  problems  which  it  is  the 
object  of  the  controversy  to  solve,  whether  God  is 
almighty  as  a  moral  and  providential  ruler  as  well  as 
creator,  or  weak  and  liable  to  perpetual  frustration ; 
whether  he  is  wholly  able  or  wholly  unable,  to  pre- 
vent moral  beings  from  sinning;  whether  he  can  or 
cannot  determine  and  foresee  the  events  of  their 
agency,  and  thence  whether  his  predictions,  threaten- 
ings  and  promises  are  true  or  false — indisputably 
involve  all  that  is  essential  in  Christianity ;  and  the 
scheme  which  affirms  the  one  is  as  diverse  from  that 
which  asserts  the  other,  as  light  is  from  darkness, 
and  truth  from  falsehood."  "The  question  between 
them,   is   nothing  less   than   the    question — of    two 


COVENANT   WITH   ADAM.  41 

wholly  dissimilar  and  contradictory  systems,  which 
is  it  that  is  the  gospel  of  the  grace  of  God,  and  which 
therefore  is  it  that  wholly  contradicts  and  subverts 
the  gospel?" 


CHAPTER  II. 

god's  covenant  with  ADAM,  AND   OUR   RELATION   TO   HIM  AS   OUR 

FEDERAL  HEAD INVOLVING  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  IMPUTATION    AND 

ORIGINAL  SIN. 

According  to  Witsius,  "A  covenant  of  God  with 
man  is  an  agreement  between  God  and  man,  about 
the  method  of  obtaining  consummate  happiness,  with 
the  addition  of  a  threatening  of  eternal  destruction, 
with  which  the  despiser  of  the  happiness  oflfered  in 
that  way  is  to  be  punished."  Such  a  covenant  God 
made  with  Adam  before  the  fall;  and  through  him 
with  all  his  posterity — -he  acting  as  their  federal  head 
and  representative.  "  The  first  covenant  made  with 
man,"  says  our  Confession  of  Eaith,  "was  a  covenant 
of  works,  wherein  life  was  promised  to  Adam,  and  in 
him,  to  his  posterity,  upon  condition  of  perfect  and 
personal  obedience" — (as  our  Catechism  adds,)  **  for- 
bidding him  to  eat  of  the  tree  of  knowledge  of  good 
and  evil  upon  pain  of  death."  This  has  been  the 
common  sentiment  among  the  reformed  churches 
since  the  time  of  Luther  and  Calvin.  It  also  formed 
a  part  of  the  creed  of  the  early  Christian  Fathers. 
4* 


42  COVENANT   WITH   ADAM. 

Some  of  the  reasons  for  this  doctrine  are  the  fol- 
lowing: 

1.  The  law  given  to  Adam  in  Gen.  ii.  16,  17,  con- 
tained all  the  essential  properties  of  a  covenant ;  viz. 
parties,  a  condition,  a  penalty,  and  an  implied  pro- 
mise. It  is  not  essential  to  a  covenant  that  the  par- 
ties should  be  equal — nor  was  it  necessary  in  the 
present  case,  that  Adam  should  give  a  formal  consent 
to  the  terms  proposed;  because  they  were  binding 
upon  him  as  a  creature  of  God,  independent  of  his 
consent.  But  inasmuch  as  he  was  created  in  the 
image  of  God,  and  had  his  law  written  in  his  heart, 
there  was  undoubtedly  a  cordial  assent  to  the  pro- 
posed condition. 

2.  That  transaction  is  referred  to  by  the  prophet 
Hosea,  under  the  name  of  a  covenant.  "But  they 
like  men  [Heb.  like  Adam,]  have  transgressed  the 
covenant."  Hosea  vi.  7.  Upon  this  passage  Henry 
remarks,  "  Herein  they  trod  in  the  steps  of  our  first 
parents;  they,  like  Adam,  have  transgressed  the  cov- 
enant; (so  it  might  very  well  be  read;)  as  he  trans- 
gressed the  covenant  of  innocency,  so  they  trans- 
gressed the  covenant  of  grace;  so  treacherously,  so 
foolishly;  there  in  paradise,  he  violated  his  engage- 
ments to  God;  and  there  in  Canaan,  another  j^ara- 
disc,  they  violated  their  engagements.  And  by  their 
treacherous  dealing  they,  like  Adam,  have  ruined 
themselves  and  theirs."  This  text  has  no  definite 
sense,  unless  it  refers  to  Adam. 

3.  Christ  is  said  to  have  been  given  "for  a  cove- 
nant of  the  people;"  (Isa.  xlii.  6,)  and  since  a  parallel 


ADAM  OUR  FEDERAL  HEAD.  43 

is  drawn  by  the  apostles  between  Christ  and  Adam, 
the  latter  being  called  the  first,  and  the  former  the 
second  Adam,  the  analogy  requires  us  to  regard  the 
first  Adam  as  a  party  to  a  covenant. 
.  The  representative  character  of  Adam  may  be 
proved  by  the  following  considerations.  All  the  dis- 
pensations of  Jehovah  concerning  Adam  before  the 
fall,  respected  his  posterity  as  well  as  himself;  such 
as  dominion  over  the  creatures,  liberty  to  eat  of  the 
productions  of  the  earth,  the  law  of  marriage,  &c. 
When  God  made  this  covenant  with  Adam,  it  does 
not  appear  that  Eve  was  yet  formed — and  yet  it  is 
manifest  from  her  reply  to  the  tempter,  (Gen.  iii.  2, 
3,)  that  she  considered  herself  as  included  in  the 
transaction.  Again;  it  is  said  (Gen.  v.  2,)  that  when 
God  created  man  male  and  female,  he  called  their 
name  Adam;  which  indicates  that  the  woman  was  in- 
cluded federally  in  the  man.  Further;  the  conse- 
quences of  Adam's  transgression  afi'ected  his  posterity 
as  well  as  himself.  Gen.  iii.  16,  19 ;  Rom.  v.  12 ; 
1  Cor.  XV.  22.  The  apostle  also  draws  a  paralled  be- 
tween Christ  and  Adam;  in  which  he  describes  Christ 
as  the  representative  of  his  spiritual  seed,  as  Adam 
was  of  his  natural  seed.  Rom.  v.  12,  19;  1  Cor.  xv. 
22.  But  how  did  Christ  represent  his  seed  except  in 
the  covenant  of  grace?  Adam,  therefore,  must  have 
represented  his  in  the  covenant  of  works. 

That  covenant  made  with  Adam,  and  through  him 
with  his  posterity,  involves  the  doctrines  of  imputa- 
tion and  original  sin.  Destroy  that  and  you  destroy 
these — they  must  stand   or  fall  together.     And  as 


44  IMPUTATION   AND   ORIGINAL   SIN. 

they  are  both  based  upon  the  same  covenant,  so  they 
are  closely  connected  with  each  other.  "  So  far  as  I 
know,"  says  President  Edwards,  "most  of  those  who 
hold  one  of  these  have  maintained  the  other;  and 
most  of  those  who  have  opposed  one  have  opposed  tl^e 
other.  And  it  may  perhaps  appear  in  our  future 
consideration  of  the  subject,  that  they  are  closely 
connected,  and  that  the  arguments  which  prove  the 
one,  establish  the  other,  and  that  there  are  no  more 
difficulties  attending  the  allowing  of  one  than  the 
other." 

Upon  these  points  the  Confession  of  Faith  teaches, 
that  our  first  parents  "being  the  root  of  all  mankind; 
the  guilt  of  this  sin  [eating  the  forbidden  fruit]  was 
imputed,  and  the  same  death  in  sin  and  corrupted 
nature  conveyed  to  all  their  prosperity,  descending 
from  them  by  ordinary  generation" — and  that  "from 
this  original  corruption,  whereby  we  are  utterly 
indisposed,  disabled,  and  made  opposite  to  all  good, 
and  wholly  inclined  to  all  evil,  do  proceed  all  actual 
transgressions."  The  phrase  "root  of  all  mankind," 
it  is  evident  from  the  proof-texts,  refers  not  merely 
to  natural  relation,  but  also  to  covenant  headship; 
the  latter  being  the  principal  foundation  upon  which 
the  guilt  of  Adam's  first  sin  is  imputed  to  us ;  while 
the  former  is  the  channel  through  which  our  cor- 
rupted nature  is  conveyed.  "Original  sin  is  con- 
veyed from  our  first  parents  unto  their  posterity  by 
natural  generation,  so  as  all  that  proceed  from  them 
in  that  way,  are  conceived  and  born  in  sin." — Larger 
Catechism.     Imputation  regards  us  as  being  respon- 


IMPUTATION — VIEWS   OP   DR.    HODGE.  45 

sible  In  law,  for  wliat  Adam  did  as  our  representative 
— and  as  a  punishment  for  his  sin,  our  original  right- 
eousness was  lost,  and  we  are  born  with  a  corrupt 
disposition.     That  is  what  is  meant  by  original  sin. 

As  President  Edwards  is  often  referred  to  as  a 
standard  author  on  these  points  we  will  quote  a  few 
sentences  from  his  work  on  original  sin.  "  Bj  origi- 
nal sin,  says  he,  as  the  phrase  has  been  most  com- 
monly used  by  divines,  is  meant  the  innate  sinful 
depravity  of  the  heart.  But  yet  when  the  doctrine  of 
original  sin  is  spoken  of,  it  is  vulgarly  understood 
in  that  latitude,  as  to  include  not  only  the  depravity 
of  nature,  but  the  imputation  of  Adam's  first  sin; 
or,  in  other  words,  the  liahleness  or  exposedness  of 
Adam's  posterity  in  the  divine  judgment,  to  partake 
of  the  punishment  of  that  sin." 

By  the  imputation  of  Adam's  sin  then,  according 
to  President  Edwards,  is  meant  liability  to  punish- 
ment on  account  of  his  sin — and  by  original  sin,  the 
inherent  depravity  of  our  nature.  This  we  believe  is 
in  exact  accordance  with  our  standards,  as  they  are 
understood  by  our  most  approved  commentators. 

Dr.  Hodge,  in  his  commentary  on  the  Romans, 
observes,  "  This  doctrine  [of  imputation]  does  not 
include  the  idea  of  a  mysterious  identity  of  Adam  and 
his  race ;  nor  that  of  a  transfer  of  the  moral  turpitude 
of  his  sin  to  his  descendants.  It  does  not  teach  that 
his  offence  was  personally  or  properly  the  sin  of  all 
men,  or  that  his  act  was,  in  any  mysterious  sense,  the 
act  of  his  posterity."  "The  sin  of  Adam,  therefore, 
is  no   ground   to    us  of  remorse."      "This  doctrine 


46  IMPUTATION — VIEWS   OF   DR.  HODGE. 

merely  teaches  that  in  virtue  of  the  union  representa' 
tive  a7id  natural,  between  Adam  and  his  posterity,  his 
sin  is  the  ground  of  their  condemnation,  that  is,  of 
their  subjection  to  penal  evils.'"  In  reference  to  ori- 
ginal sin,  he  says,  "It  is  not,  however,  the  doctrine 
of  the  Scriptures,  nor  of  the  reformed  churches,  nor 
of  our  standards,  that  the  corruption  of  nature  of 
which  they  speak,  is  any  depravation  of  the  soul,  or 
an  essential  attribute,  or  the  infusion  of  any  positive 
evil."  "  These  confessions  [of  the  reformers]  teach 
that  original  righteousness  teas  lost,  and  by  that  de- 
fect the  tendency  to  sin  or  corrupt  disposition,  or 
corruption  of  nature,  is  occasioned.  Though  they 
speak  of  original  sin  as  being  first  negative,  i.  e.  the 
loss  of  righteousness;  and  secondly,  positive,  or  cor- 
ruption of  nature;  yet  by  the  latter,  they  state,  is  to 
be  understood,  not  the  infusion  of  any  thing  in  itself 
sinful,  but  an  actual  tendency  or  disposition  to  evil 
resulting  from  the  loss  of  righteousness."  As  some 
of  the  strongest  objections  to  these  doctrines  arise 
either  from  misunderstanding  or  misrepresenting 
them,  the  only  answer  which  is  necessary  in  many  in- 
stances, is,  to  show  that  the  doctrines  as  held  by  those 
who  embrace  them,  are  not  what  the  objector  sup- 
poses. The  above  quotations  will  serve  to  show  what 
are  the  true  doctrines  on  this  subject.  Some  of  the 
proofs  by  which  they  are  substantiated,  together  with 
such  remarks  as  may  occur  to  us,  will  be  reserved  for 
a  subsequent  chapter.* 

*  To  any  one  who  desires  particular  information  on  these 
points,  we  recommend  the  commentary  of  the  Kev.  Dr.  Ilodge, 


NEW-SCnOOL   THEORY.  47 

We  will  now  sta-te  with  as  mucli  accuracy  as  we  are 
capable  of,  what  we  understand  to  be  the  New-school 
doctrines  in  reference  to  this  subject.  According  to 
the  New  Theology,  there  was  not,  in  the  proper  sense 
of  the  word,  any  covenant  made  with  Adam,  but  he 
was  merely  placed  under  a  law.  He  was  not  the  fed- 
eral head  or  representative  of  his  posterity,  but  only 
their  natural  parent.  Though,  as  his  descendants, 
we  feel  the  effects  of  his  sin,  and  become  sinful  our- 
selves in  consequence  of  it,  the  doctrine  that  his  sin 
was  imputed  to  us  is  unjust  and  absurd.  All  sin  and 
holiness  consist  in  acts.  To  speak  of  a  sinful  or  holy 
nature^  (except  in  a  figurative  sense)  is,  therefore, 
absurd.  When  Adam  was  created,  he  was  neither 
sinful  nor  holy,  but  he  acquired  a  holy  character  by 
the  performance  of  holy  acts,  i.  e.  by  choosing  God 
as  his  supreme  good,  and  placing  his  affections  upon 
him.  Jesus  Christ,  though  called  holy  at  his  birth, 
was  so  merely  in  the  sense  of  dedicated,  and  not  as 
possessing  (morally  considered)  a  holy  nature.  When 
we  are  born  "yre  possess  no  moral  character  any  more 
than  brutes,  but  we  acquire  a  moral  character  as  soon 
as  we  arrive  at  moral  agency,  and  put  forth  moral 
acts.  In  the  sense  in  which  it  has  been  commonly 
understood,  there  is  no  such  thing  as  original  sin, 

from  which  we  have  just  quoted.  There  is  no  work  within  my 
knowledge,  which  to  me  is  so  clear  and  satisfactory  in  its  state- 
ments and  reasonings  on  this  subject,  and  I  believe  it  expresses 
the  views  which  are  generally  entertained  by  those  who  are 
denominated  the  "  Old-scliool,^'  or  "  Oriliodox"  portion  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church. 


48        NEW-SCHOOL   WRITERS    STILL   USE   OLD   TERMS. 

there  being  no  other  original  sin  than  the  first  sin  a 
child  commits  after  arriving  at  moral  agency.  Chil- 
dren are  born  with  the  same  nature  as  Adam  possessed 
at  his  creation — and  the  difi*erence  between  us  and 
him  is,  that  we  are  born  in  different  circumstances ; 
and  that  the  inferior  powers  of  our  nature  have  ob- 
tained greater  relative  strength ;  from  which  it  uni- 
versally results  as  a  matter  of  fact,  that  our  first  acts 
are  sinful,  instead  of  being  holy,  as  his  were ;  i.  e.  we 
do  not  choose  God  as  the  object  of  our  supreme  affec- 
tion, but  the  world — and  this  choice  of  the  world  as 
our  chief  good  is  what  constitutes  human  depravity. 

Before  referring  to  our  authorities,  we  wish  to  ob- 
serve that  those  who  hold  either  wholly  or  in  part  to 
the  above  doctrines,  have  not  entirely  laid  aside  the 
use  of  the  terms  covenant,  imputation,  original  sin, 
&c. — but  they  employ  them  in  a  different  sense  from 
that  which  has  been  generally  attached  to  them  by 
Calvinistic  writers. 

Mr.  Finney,  for  example,  uses  the  term  covenant, 
in  regard  to  the  transaction  between  God  and  Adam ; 
and  yet  he  denies  that  Adam  was  the  federal  head  of 
his  posterity.  His  doctrine  appears  to  be  that  all 
mankind  were  placed  prospectively  under  the  cove- 
nant of  works,  and  were  to  have  a  trial  or  probation, 
each  one  for  himself,  similar  to  what  Adam  had;  and 
that  from  their  connection  with  him  as  their  natural 
parent,  it  so  happens  that  they  all  break  the  covenant 
as  soon  as  they  arrive  at  moral  agency,  and  thus  be- 
come sinners.  His  language  is,  "I  suppose  that 
mankind  were   originally  all  under  a  coveyiant  of 


NEW-SCHOOL  WRITERS  STILL  USE  OLD  TERMS.  49 

worJcs,  and  that  Adam  was  not  so  their  head  or  repre- 
sentative, that  his  obedience  or  disobedience  involved 
them  irresistibly  in  sin  and  condemnation,  irrespec- 
tive of  their  own  acts." — Lectures  to  Professing 
Christians,  p.  286.  Take  these  words  in  connection 
with  what  precedes,  and  their  import  will  be  more 
obvious.  "It  has  been  supposed  by  many,"  says  he, 
"  that  there  was  a  covenant  made  with  Adam  such  as 
this,  that  if  he  continued  to  obey  the  law  for  a  limited 
period,  all  his  posterity  should  be  confirmed  in  holi- 
ness and  happiness  for  ever.  What  the  reason  is  for 
this  belief  I  am  unable  to  ascertain :  I  am  not  aware 
that  the  doctrine  is  taught  in  the  Bible."  Here  he 
alludes  in  direct  terms  to  the  common  doctrine,  and 
expresses  his  dissent  from  it.  But  what  does  he 
hold?  "Adam,"  says  he,  "was  the  natural  head  of 
the  human  race,  and  his  sin  has  involved  them  in  its 
consequences ;  but  not  on  the  principle  that  his  sin  is 
literally  accounted  their  sin."  \_Qusere:  Who  does 
maintain  this  opinion?]  "The  truth,"  he  adds,  "is 
simply  this:  that  from  the  relation  in  which  he  stood 
as  their  natural  head,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  his  sin  has 
resulted  in  the  sin  and  ruin  of  his  posterity."  Then 
follows  what  we  first  quoted.  Thus  it  appears  that 
though  he  employs  the  terms  covenant  of  works,  he 
rejects  the  doctrine  which  is  generally  entertained  by 
those  who  use  them.  He  intends  one  thing  by  them, 
and  they  another. 

Mr.  Barnes,  in  the  seventh  edition  of  his  Notes  on 
the  Romans,  (p.  128,)  uses  the  word  impute,  in  refer- 
ence to  the  guilt  of  Adam's  first  sin ;  though  by  a 
5 


50  NEW-SCHOOL  WRITERS  STILL  USE  OLD  TERMS. 

comparison  Letween  liis  remarks  here,  and  some 
which  are  found  in  other  parts  of  the  book,  it  is  evi- 
dent he  attaches  a  different  meaning  to  the  word, 
from  what  is  common  among  Calvinistic  writers.  He 
says,  (p.  95,)  ^'I  have  examined  all  the  passages," 
where  the  word  occurs  in  the  Old  Testament,  "and  as 
the  result  of  my  examination,  have  come  to  the  con- 
clusion that  there  is  not  one  in  which  the  word  is  used 
in  the  sense  of  reclconing  or  imputing  to  a  man  that 
which  does  not  strictly  belong  to  him ;  or  of  charging 
on  him  that  which  ought  not  to  be  charged  on  him  as  a 
matter  of  personal  right.  The  word  is  never  used  to 
denote  imputing  in  the  sense  of  transferring^  or  of 
charging  that  on  one  which  does  not  properly  belong 
to  him.  The  same  is  the  case  in  the  New  Testament. 
The  word  occurs  about  forty  times,  and  in  a  similar 
signification.  No  doctrine  of  transferring,  or  of  set- 
ing  over  to  a  man  what  does  not  properly  belong  to 
him,  be  it  sin  or  holiness,  can  be  derived,  therefore, 
from  this  word." 

The  transfer  of  the  moral  turpitude  of  Adam's  sin 
is  no  part  of  the  doctrine,  as  held  by  its  advocates — 
but  this  is  not  what  Mr.  Barnes  intends  to  deny; 
because  he  expressly  informs  us,  that  by  transferring 
he  means  "  setting  over  to  a  man  what  does  not  pro- 
perly belong  to  him."  The  word  impute,  then, 
according  to  him,  is  never  used  in  the  sense  of  "set- 
ting over  to  a  man  what  does  not  properly  belong  to 
}iiin" — i.  e.  what  ^^  ought  not  to  be  charged  on  him  as 
a  matter  of  personal  right."  Nor  is  this  doctrine 
taught  in  any  of  these  passages.     How  different  is 


NEW-SCHOOL  WRITERS  STILL  USE  OLD  TERMS.  51 

this  from  the  language  of  Turretin  and  Owen,  as 
quoted  by  Dr.  Hodge.  "Imputation,"  says  the 
former,  "is  either  of  something  foreign  to  us,  or  of 
something  properly  our  own.  Sometimes  that  is 
imputed  to  us  which  is  personally  ours;  in  which 
sense  God  imputes  to  sinners  their  transgressions. 
Sometimes  that  is  imputed  to  us  which  is  without  us, 
and  not  performed  hy  ourselves ;  thus  the  righteous- 
ness of  Christ  is  said  to  he  imputed  to  us,  and  our 
sins  are  imputed  to  him  although  he  has  neither  sin 
in  himself,  nor  we  righteousness.  Here  ive  speak  of 
the  latter  kind  of  imputation,  not  the  former,  because 
ive  are  talking  of  a  sin  committed  hy  Adam,  and  not 
hy  us The  foundation,  therefore,  of  imputa- 
tion, is  not  only  the  natural  connection  which  exists 
between  us  and  Adam,  since,  in  that  case,  all  his  sins 
might  be  imputed  to  us,  but  mainly  the  moral  and 
federal,  in  virtue  of  which  God  entered  into  covenant 
with  him  as  our  head."  Owen  says,  "  Things  which 
are  not  our  own  originally,  inherently,  may  yet  he 
imputed  to  us,  ex  justitia,  hy  the  rule  of  righteous- 
ness. And  this  may  be  done  upon  a  double  relation 
unto  those  whose  they  are.  1.  Federal.  2.  Natu- 
ral. Things  done  hy  one  may  he  imputed  unto  others, 
propter  relationem  foederalem,  because  of  a  covenant 
relation  between  them.  So  the  sin  of  Adam  was 
imputed  to  all  his  posterity.  And  the  ground  hereof 
is,  that  we  stood  in  the  same  covenant  with  him  who 
was  our  head  and  representative."  ....  "Nothing 
is  intended  by  the  imputation  of  sin  unto  an}^,  but 


52  NEW-SCHOOL  WRITERS  STILL  USE  OLD  TERMS. 

the  rendering  them  justly  obnoxious  unto  the  punish- 
ishment  due  unto  that  sin." 

Though,  therefore,  Mr.  Barnes  uses  the  word  im- 
pute, he  does  not  mean  with  these  authors,  that 
Adam's  posterity  were  rendered  legally  liable  to  pun- 
ishment on  account  of  his  sin ;  but  only  that  they  are 
"subject  to  pain,  and  death,  and  depravity,  as  the 
consequence  of  his  sin;"  ^'subject  to  depravity  as  the 
consequence;"  i.  e.  liable  to  become  depraved  as  soon 
as  they  arrive  at  moral  agency,  on  account  of  their 
being  descended  from  Adam,  who  was  "the  head  of 
the  race;"  and  who  having  sinned,  "secured  as  a 
certain  result  that  all  the  race  will  be  sinners  also;" 
such  being  "  the  organization  of  the  great  society  of 
which  he  was  the  head  and  father."  "The  drunk- 
ard," says  he,  "secures  as  a  result,  commonly,  that 
his  family  will  be  reduced  to  beggary,  want  and  woe. 
A  pirate,  or  a  traitor,  will  whelm  not  himself  only, 
but  his  family  in  ruin.  Such  is  the  great  law  or 
constitution,  on  which  society  is  now  organized;  and 
we  are  not  to  be  surprised  that  the  same  principle 
occurred  in  the  primary/  organization  of  human 
affairs."  Is  this  the  sense  in  which  our  Confession 
of  Faith  uses  the  word  impute  ?  I  will  leave  it  for 
the  reader  to  judge. 

Professor  Fitch  of  New  Haven  has  not  laid  aside 
the  phrase  original  sin,  though  the  whole  drift  of 
his  discourses  on  the  nature  of  sin  is  inconsistent 
with  the  common  doctrine,  and  was  doubtless  intended 
to  overthrow  it.     If  it  be  true,   according  to   him, 


REMARKS   OF   DR.    MILLER.  53 

"  that  sin,  in  every  form  and  instance,  is  reducible 
to  the  act  of  a  moral  agent,  in  which  he  violates  a 
known  rule  of  duty,"  how  can  it  be  possible  that 
there  is  any  such  thing  as  is  called  by  President 
Edwards,  'Hhe  innate  sinful  depravity  of  the  heart?'* 
Professor  Fitch  does  not  pretend  that  there  is — and 
yet  he  would  make  his  readers  believe  that  he  holds 
to  original  sin,  and  he  tells  us  in  one  of  his  infer- 
ences, that  "the  subject  may  assist  us  in  making  a 
right  explanation  of  the  doctrine."  And  what  is  it? 
"Nothing  can  in  truth  be  called  original  sin,  but  his 
first  moral  choice  or  preference  being  evil."  One 
can  hardly  exculpate  him  from  disingenuousness  in. 
retaining  the  terms,  after  having  adopted  principles 
subversive  of  their  clear  import ;  and  then  employing 
them  in  a  sense  materially  different  from  common 
and  long  established  usage.  He  must  certainly  have 
known  that  his  definition  of  original  sin  is  strikingly 
at  variance  with  that  of  Calvin ;  who  describes  it  as 
^' an  hereditary  depravity  and  corruption  of  our 
nature,  diffused  through  every  part  of  the  soul,  which 
first  makes  us  obnoxious  to  the  wrath  of  God,  and 
then  produces  those  works  which  the  Scriptures  de- 
nominate the  works  of  the  flesh." 

We  have  extended  these  remarks  so  much  beyond 
what  we  anticipated,  that  the  quotations  we  intended 
to  make  in  proof  of  our  statement  concerning  the 
New-school  doctrines,  must  be  reserved  for  another 
chapter.  We  will  therefore  close  the  present  chapter 
with  a  few  appropriate  and  forcible  observations  of 
Dr.  Miller,  taken  from  his  Letters  to  Presbyterians. 
5* 


54  REMARKS   OF  DR.    MILLER. 

After  enumerating  most  of  the  New-school  doctrines 
"which  are  brought  to  view  in  this  chapter,  and  some 
others  which  we  shall  notice  hereafter,  he  says:  ''If 
Pelagian  and  semi-Pelagian  sentiments  existed  in 
the  fifth  century^  here  they  are  in  all  their  unques- 
tionable and  revolting  features.  More  particularly 
in  regard  to  the  denial  of  original  sin^  and  the 
assertion  of  the  doctrine  of  human  ability^  Pelagius 
and  his  followers  never  went  further  than  some  of  the 
advocates  of  the  doctrines  above  recited.  To  attempt 
to  persuade  us  to  the  contrary,  is  to  suppose  that  the 
record  of  the  published  language  and  opinions  of 
those  ancient  heretics  is  lost  or  forgotten.  And  to 
assert  that  these  opinions  are  reconcilable  with  the 
Calvinistic  system,  is  to  offer  a  poor  compliment  to 
the  memory  of  the  most  acute,  learned  and  pious 
divines,  that  ever  adorned  the  Church  of  God,  from 
the  days  of  Augustine  to  those  of  the  venerable  band 
of  Puritans,  who,  after  bearing  a  noble  testimony 
against  surrounding  errors  on  the  other  side  of  the 
Atlantic,  bore  the  lamp  of  truth  and  planted  the 
standard  of  Christ  in  this  western  hemisphere." 
These  observations  are  not  introduced  with  a  view 
of  influencing  the  reader  to  receive  the  statement 
they  contain,  on  the  mere  authority  of  a  venerable 
name ;  nor  of  forestalling  his  judgment  with  regard 
to  the  points  under  consideration.  All  that  we  expect 
or  desire  is,  that  they  will  influence  him  to  consider 
the  controversy  not  as  consisting  (as  some  profess  to 
believe)  in  a  mere  "strife  about  words,"  but  as 
involving  important  and  dangerous  errors;  and  will 


COVENANT   WITH   ADAM.  55 

induce  him  to  give  such  attention  to  the  proofs  we 
are  about  to  exhibit,  and  to  other  sources  of  evidence 
to  which  he  may  have  access,  as  will  enable  him  to 
ascertain  to  his  entire  satisfaction,  whether  these 
things  are  so.  If  wise  and  good  men  now  concur 
with  the  "most  acute,  learned  and  pious  divines  that 
ever  adorned  the  Church  of  God"  in  former  days,  in 
judging  these  sentiments  to  be  heretical  and  perni- 
cious; they  claim  the  careful  examination  of  those 
who  attach  any  importance  to  religious  truth,  and 
desire  to  enjoy  its  invaluable  and  permanent  benefits. 


CHAPTER  III. 

THE  SUBJECT  OF  THE  PRECEDING  CHAPTER  CONTINUED,  EXHIBITING 
THE  NEW  THEOLOGY  CONCERNING  GOD's  COVENANT  WITH  ADAM, 
AS  THE  FEDERAL  HEAD  OF  HIS  POSTERITY,  IMPUTATION,  ORIGI- 
NAL SIN,  &C. 

Our  statement  in  the  last  chapter  concerning  the 
New  Theology,  though  embraced  under  three  or  four 
general  heads,  involves  as  many  other  points,  which 
either  grow  out  of  the  former,  or  are  so  connected 
with  them,  that  our  views  of  the  one  will  materially 
affect  our  sentiments  concerning  the  other.  Accord- 
ingly, in  that  statement,  these  several  particulars 
were  presented;  but  they  are  so  involved  in  each 
other,  it  will  not  be  easy  in  our  quotations  to  keep 
them  entirely  distinct.     We  shall  therefore  make  no 


56  COVENANT   WITH   ADAM. 

formal  divisions,  but  introduce  them  in  sucli  order  as 
■we  find  most  convenient. 

I  will  suppose  myself  in  the  company  of  several 
prominent  ministers,  to  whom  a  gentleman  present 
by  the  name  of  Querist,  proposes  the  following  ques- 
tions : 

Querist. — Mr.  Barnes,  I  have  recently  perused 
your  sermon  on  the  Way  of  Salvation,  and  your 
Notes  on  the  Romans.  Am  I  correct  in  supposing 
that  you  deny  that  any  covenant  was  made  with 
Adam,  as  the  federal  head  or  representative  of  his 
posterity  ? 

Mr.  Barnes. — "Nothing  is  said  of  a  covenant  with 
him.  No  where  in  the  Scriptures  is  the  term  cove- 
7iant  applied  to  any  transaction  with  Adam.  All 
that  is  established  here  is  the  simple'fact  that  Adam 
sinned,  and  that  this  made  it  certain  that  all  his  pos- 
terity would  be  sinners.  Beyond  this,  the  language 
of  the  Apostle  does  not  go;  and  all  else  that  has 
been  said  of  this,  is  the  result  of  mere  philosophical 
speculation." — JVotes  on  the  Romans^  1st  edition, 
p.  128. 

Querist. — Was  not  Christ  the  covenant  head  of  his 
people,  and  does  not  the  Apostle  draw  a  parallel 
between  Adam  and  Christ? 

Mr.  Barnes. — "A  comparison  is  also  instituted 
between  Adam  and  Christ  in  1  Cor.  xv.  22 — 25. 
The  reason  is,  not  that  Adam  was  the  representative 
or  federal  head  of  the  human  race,  about  which  the 
Apostle  says  nothing,  and  which  is  not  even  implied, 
but  that  he  was  the  first  of  the  race;  he  was  the 


VIEWS   OP   MR.    BARNES.  57 

fountain,  the  head,  the  father;  and  the  consequences 
of  that  first  act,  introducing  sin  into  the  world,  could 
be  seen  every  \yhere.  The  words  representative  and 
federal  head  are  never  applied  to  Adam  in  the  Bible. 
The  reason  is,  that  the  word  representative  implies  an 
idea  which  could  not  have  existed  in  the  case — the 
consent  of  those  who  are  represented.  Besides,  the 
Bible  does  not  teach  that  they  acted  in  him,  or  by 
him;  or  that  he  acted  /(9r  them.  No  passage  has 
ever  yet  been  found  that  stated  this  doctrine." — 
Notes  on  the  Romans,  1st  edition,  pp.  120,  121, 

Querist. — I  perceive  that  in  the  later  editions  of 
your  Notes  the  above  phraseology  is  considerably 
changed — have  you  altered  your  sentiments  ? 

Mr.  Barnes. — "Some  expressions  in  the  former 
editions  have  been  misunderstood;  some  are  now 
seen  to  have  been  ambiguous ;  a  few  that  have  given 
ojffence  have  been  changed,  because,  without  aban- 
doning any  principle  of  doctrine  or  interpretation,  I 
could  convey  my  ideas  in  language  more  acceptable 
and  less  fitted  to  produce  offence." — Advertisement 
to  the  fifth  edition.  "My  views  have  never  changed 
on  the  subject  that  I  can  now  recollect." — Mr. 
Barnes's  Defence  before  the  Second  Presbytery  of 
Philadelphia,  in  June  and  July,  1835. 

Querist. — Do  you  then  deny  the  doctrine  of  ir)ipU' 
tation  ? 

Mr.  Barnes. — "  That  doctrine  is  nothing  but  an 
effort  to  explain  the  manner  of  an  event  which  the 
Apostle  did  not  think  it  proper  to  attempt  to  explain. 
That  doctrine  is,  in  fact,  no  explanation.     It  is  intro- 


58  IMPUTATION — Edwards's  views. 

ducing  an  additional  difficulty.  For,  to  say  that  I 
am  blameworthy,  or  ill-deserving,  for  a  sin  in  which 
I  had  no  agency,  is  no  explanation,  but  is  involving 
me  in  an  additional  difficulty,  still  more  perplexing, 
to  ascertain  how  such  a  doctrine  can  possibly  be 
just." — Notes  on  the  Romans,  Tth  edition,  pp.  121, 
122.  "  Christianity  does  not  charge  on  men  crimes 
of  which  they  are  not  guilty.  It  does  not  say,  as 
I  suppose,  that  the  sinner  is  held  to  be  personally 
answerable  for  the  transgressions  of  Adam,  or  of  any 
other  man." — Sermon  on  the  Way  of  Salvatio7i, 

Querist. — You  cannot  be  ignorant,  sir,  that  these 
views  are  at  variance  with  the  sentiments  of  Cal- 
vinistic  writers.  The  5th  chapter  of  Romans  has 
been  universally  considered  as  teaching  this  doctrine. 
President  Edwards  says:  "As  this  place,  in  general, 
is  very  full  and  plain,  so  the  doctrine  of  the  corrup- 
tion of  nature,  derived  from  Adam,  and  also  the 
imputation  of  his  first  sin,  are  both  clearly  taught  in 
it.  The  imputation  of  Adam's  one  transgression,  is, 
indeed,  most  directly  and  frequently  asserted.  We 
are  here  assured  that  by  ONE  man's  SIN,  death  passed 
upon  all;  all  being  adjudged  to  this  punishment,  as 
having  sinned  (so  it  is  implied)  in  that  one  man's  sin. 
And  it  is  repeated  over  and  over,  that  all  are  con- 
declined,  many  are  dead,  many  made  sinners,  ^c,  by 
one  mans  offence,  by  the  disobedience  of  ONE,  and  by 

ONE  offence,'' "Though  the  word  impute 

is  not  used  with  respect  to  Adam's  sin,  yet  it  is  said, 
all  have  sinned;  which,  respecting  infants,  can  be 
true  only  of  their  sinning  by  this  sin.    And  it  is  said, 


VIEWS   OF   MR.    BARNES.  59 

hy  his  disohedience  many  were  made  sinners;  and 
judgment  came  upon  all  by  that  sin;  and  that  by 
this  means,  death  (the  wages  of  sin)  passed  on  all 
men,  &c.,  which  phrases  amount  to  full  and  precise 
explanations  of  the  word  impute;  and,  therefore,  do 
more  certainly  determine  the  point  really  insisted 
on." — Edtvards  on  Original  Sin,  vol.  2,  pp.  512, 
517. 

Mr.  Barnes. — "It  is  not  denied  that  this  [my]  lan- 
guage varies  from  the  statements  which  are  often 
made  on  the  subject,  and  from  the  opinion  which  has 
been  entertained  by  many  men.  And  it  is  admitted 
that  it  does  not  accord  with  that  used  on  the  same 
subject  in  the  Confession  of  Faith,  and  in  other  stand- 
ards of  doctrine.  The  main  difference  is,  that  it  is 
difficult  to  affix  any  clear  and  definite  meaning  to  the 
expression  "we  sinned  in  him,  and  fell  tvith  him." 
It  is  manifest,  so  far  as  it  is  capable  of  interpretation, 
that  it  is  intended  to  convey  the  idea,  not  that  the  sin 
of  Adam  is  imputed  to  us,  or  set  over  to  our  account ; 
but  that  there  was  a  personal  identity  constituted  be- 
tween Adam  and  his  posterity,  so  that  it  was  really 
our  act,  and  ours  only,  after  all,  that  is  chargeable  on 
us.  This  was  the  idea  of  Edwards.  The  notion  of 
IMPUTING  sin  is  an  invention  of  modern  times ;  and 
it  is  not,  it  is  believed,  the  doctrine  of  the  Confession 
of  Faith."  ..."  Christianity  affirms  the  fact,  that, 
in  connection  with  the  sin  of  Adam,  or  as  a  re- 
sult, all  moral  agents  in  this  world  will  sin,  and  sin- 
ning, will  die. — Rom.  v.  12 — 19.  It  does  not  affirm, 
however,  any  thing   about   the  mode   in  which   this 


60  COVENANT  WITH  ADAM. 

would  be  done.  There  are  many  ways  conceivable, 
in  whicb  that  sin  might  secure  the  result,  as  there  are 
many  ways  in  which  all  similar  facts  may  be  ex- 
plained. The  drunkard  commonly  secures,  as  a  re- 
sult, the  fact,  that  his  family  will  be  beggared,  illite- 
rate, perhaps  profane  or  intemperate.  Both  facts  are 
evidently  to  be  explained  on  the  same  principle  as  a 
part  of  moral  government." — Note  to  his  Sermon  on 
the  Way  of  Salvation. 

Querist. — Are  these  the  views  of  the  other  gentle- 
men present? 

Mr.  Duffield. — "  If  by  [the  union  of  representation] 
is  meant  nothing  more  than  that  Adam  did  not  act 
exclusively  for  himself;  but  that  his  conduct  was  to 
determine  the  character  and  conduct  of  those  that 
should  come  after  him,  we  will  not  object.  But  if  it 
is  meant  to  designate  any  positive  procedure  of  Gfod, 
in  which  he  made  Adam  to  stand,  and  required  him 
to  act,  as  the  substitute  of  the  persons  of  his  offspring, 
numerically  considered,  and  by  name,  head  for  head, 
so  that  they  might  be  held,  as  in  commercial  transac- 
tions, personally  liable  for  this  sin,  as  being  guilty 
copartners  with  him  in  it,  we  certainly  may  require 
other  and  better  proof  than  what  is  commonly  sub- 
mitted."— Duffield  on  Regeneration^  p.  391. 

Querist. — I  know  of  no  one  who  holds  the  doctrine 
precisely  as  you  have  stated  it — but  let  me  inquire 
whether  you  believe  there  existed  any  legal  union 
between  Adam  and  his  posterity  on  account  of  his 
being  their  covenant  head ;  and,  that  the  guilt  of  his 
first  sin  was  imputed  to  them,  or  set  over  in  law  to 


VIEWS   OF   MR.    I>UFriELD.  61 

their  account,  so  that  they  were  thereby  subjected  to 
penal  evils? 

Mr.  Duffield. — "When  it  is  said,  in  the  second 
commandment,  that  God  visits  the  iniquities  of  the 
fathers  upon  the  children,  unto  the  third  and  fourth 
generations,"  will  it  be  contended  that  this  is  because 
the  former  stood  as  the  representatives  of  the  latter, 
acting  leg  alii/,  in  their  name,  and  for  them?  We 
presume  not.  And  yet  stronger  language  cannot  be 
employed  to  denote  the  results  which  flow  from 
Adam's  sin,  by  virtue  of  our  connection  with  him. 
Why,  then,  must  we  suppose  that  there  is  a  principle 
in  the  one  case  different  from  that  in  the  other? 
And  that  what  seems  to  flow  out  of  the  natural  rela- 
tion between  parent  and  children,  and  to  be  the  natu- 
ral consequence  of  such  relation,  must  be  attributed 
to  a  legal  union  or  moral  identity  between  Adam 
and  his  offspring?" — Duffield  on  Regeneration,  p. 
392. 

Querist. — According  to  this  view,  what  becomes  of 
the  old  doctrine  of  original  sin,  as  consisting  in  the 
corruption  or  depravity  of  our  nature?  The  doc- 
trines of  imputation  and  a  corrupt  nature  have  been 
regarded  as  so  closely  connected,  that  the  denial  of 
the  former  involved  the  rejection  of  the  latter — and 
the  same  proofs  which  have  been  relied  upon  to 
establish  the  one,  have  generally  been  adduced  to 
defend  the  other.  Thus,  President  Edwards,  in  the 
passage  already  referred  to,  says:  "And  the  doctrine 
of  original  depravity  is  also  here  taught,  [i.  e.  in 
Kom.  V.  12 — 21,]  where  the  Apostle  says,  hy  one 
6 


G2  IxMPUTATION   AND   ORIGINAL   SIN. 

man  sin  entered  into  the  ivorld;  having  a  plain  respect 
(as  hath  been  shown)  to  that  universal  corruption 
and  wickedness,  as  well  as  guilt,  which  he  had  before 
largely  treated  of."  Is  original  sin  to  be  given  up; 
or  so  modified  as  to  become  an  entirely  difi'erent  doc- 
trine ? 

Dr.  Beecher. — "  The  Reformers  with  one  accord, 
taught  that  the  sin  of  Adam  was  imputed  to  all  his 
posterity,  and  that  a  corrupt  nature  descends  from  him 
to  every  one  of  his  posterity,  in  consequence  of  which 
infants  are  unholy,  unfit  for  heaven,  and  justly  ex- 
posed to  future  punishment.     Their  opinion  seems  to 
have  been,  that  the  very  substance  or  essence  of  the 
soul  was  depraved,  and  that  the  moral  contamination 
extended  alike  to  all  its  powers  and  faculties,  inso- 
much that  sin  became    a  property  of   every  man's 
nature,  and  was  propagated  as  really  as  flesh   and 
blood."  .  .  "  Our  Puritan  fathers  adhered  to  the  doc- 
trine of  original  sin,  as  consisting  in  the  imputation 
of  Adam's  sin,  and  in  a  hereditary  depravity ;   and 
this  continued  to  be  the    received  doctrine  of   the 
churches  of   New  England  until  after  the  time    of 
Edwards.     He  adopted  the  views  of  the  Reformers 
on  the  subject  of  original  sin,  as  consisting  in  the 
imputation   of  Adam's  sin,  and  a  depraved  nature, 
transmitted  hy  descent.     But  after  him  this  mode  of 
stating  the  subject  was  gradually  changed,  until  long 
since,  the   prevailing  doctrine  in  New  England  has 
been,  that  men  are  not  guilty  of  Adam's  sin,  and 
that  depravity  is  not  of  the  substance  of  the  soul,  nor 
an  inherent  or  physical  quality,  but  is  wholly  volun- 


VIEWS   OF  DR.  BEECHER.  63 

tary^  and  consists  in  a  transgression  of  the  law,  in 
such  circumstances  as  constitute  accountability  and 
desert  of  punishment." — Dr.  Beecher's  Controversy 
with  the  editor  of  the  Christian  Examiner  in  the 
Spirit  of  the  Pilgrims,  in  1828,  as  quoted  in  the  Bib- 
lical Repertory  ^"^ 

Querist. — Am  I  to  understand  by  these  remarks, 
that  the  doctrine  of  a  sinful  or  corrupt  nature  has 
been  abandoned? 

Dr.  Beecher. — "Neither  a  holy  nor  a  depraved 
nature  is  possible  without  understanding,  conscience, 
and  choice.  To  say  of  an  accountable  creature,  that 
he  is  depraved  by  nature,  is  only  to  say  that,  ren- 
dered capable  by  his  Maker  of  obedience,  he  disobeys 
from  the  commencement  of  his  accountability."  .... 
"A  depraved  nature  can  no  more  exist  without 
voluntary  agency  and  accountability,  than  a  ma- 
terial nature  can  exist  without  solidity  and  exten- 
sion."   "If,  therefore,  man  is  depraved  by 

nature,  it  is  a  voluntary  and  accountable  nature  which 
is  depraved,  exercised  in  disobedience  to  the  law  of 
God."  ....  "Native  depravity,  then,  is  a  state  of 
the  affections  in  a  voluntary  accountable  creature,  at 
variance  with  divine  requirement,  from  the  beginning 

*  Since  writing  this  chapter,  I  have  seen  the  number  of  the 
Spirit  of  the  Pilgrims,  in  which  the  above  is  found,  with  Dr. 
Beecher's  own  signature.  In  his  "Views  in  Theology,"  he 
appears  to  speak  a  different  language — language  not  easily 
reconciled  with  the  above  quotation.  But  as  he  does  not  pro- 
fess to  have  changed  his  sentiments,  the  preceding  must  be 
regarded  as  expressing  his  opinions. 


64  DEPRAVITY — VIEWS  OF  FINNEY  AND  FITCH. 

of  accountability." — Sermon  on  the  Native  Character 
of  Man. 

Mr.  Finney. — "All  depravity  [is]  volu7itary — con- 
sisting in  voluntary  transgression.  [It  is]  the  sinner's 
own  act.  Something  of  his  own  creation.  That  over 
which  he  has  a  perfect  control,  and  for  which  he  is 
entirely  responsible.  0 !  the  darkness  and  confusion, 
and  utter  nonsense  of  that  view  of  depravity  which 
exhibits  it,  as  something  lying  back,  and  the  cause  of 
all  actual  transgression." — Sermons  on  Important 
Subjects,  p.  139. 

Querist. — Does  all  sin,  then,  consist  in  acts? 

Professor  Fitch. — "Sin,  in  every  form  and  in- 
stance, is  reducible  to  the  act  of  a  moral  agent,  in 
which  he  violates  a  known  rule  of  duty." — Discourses 
on  the  Nature  of  Sin. 

Querist. — By  parity  of  reasoning,  all  holiness  must 
likewise  consist  in  acts. 

Mr.  Finney. — "All  holiness  in  God,  angels,  or 
men,  must  be  voluntary,  or  it  is  not  holiness."  .... 
"When  Adam  was  first  created,  and  awoke  into 
being,  before  he  had  obeyed  or  disobeyed  his  Maker, 
he  could  have  had  no  moral  character  at  all ;  he  had 
exercised  no  affections,  no  desires,  nor  put  forth  any 
actions.  In  this  state  he  was  a  complete  moral 
agent;  and  in  this  respect  in  the  image  of  his  Maker: 
but  as  yet  he  could  have  had  no  moral  character ;  for 
moral  character  cannot  be  a  subject  of  creation,*  but 
attaches  to  voluntary  actions.'' — Sermons  on  Im- 
portant  Subjects,  pp.  7,  10,  11. 

Querist. — If  these  views  are  correct,  what  must  be 


VIEWS    OF    MR.    DUFFIELD.  65 

said   concerning   infants?     Are   they  neither  sinful 
nor  holy? 

Mr.  Duffield. — "It  is  a  question  alike  pertinent 
and  important,  whether  in  the  incipient  period  of 
infancy  and  childhood  there  can  be  any  moral  char- 
acter whatever  possessed.  Moral  character  is  char- 
acter acquired  by  acts  of  a  moral  nature.  Moral  acts 
are  those  acts  which  are  contemplated  by  the  law, 
prescribing  the  rule  of  human  conduct."  .  .  .  "It  is 
obvious  that  in  infancy  and  incipient  childhood,  when 
none  of  the  actions  are  deliberate,  or  the  result  of 
motive,  operating  in  connection  with  the  knowledge  of 
law,  and  of  the  great  end  of  all  human  actions,  no 
moral  character  can  appropriately  be  predicated."  .  . 
"Properly  speaking,  therefore,  we  can  predicate 
of  it  neither  sin  nor  holiness,  personally  considered." 
— Duffield  on  Regeneration^  pp.  377,  378,  379. 

Querist. — Was  not  Jesus  Christ  holy  from  his 
birth  ? 

Mr.  Duffield. — "Things  inanimate  have,  in  scrip- 
tural parlance,  sometimes  been  called  holy^  as  the 
inmost  chamber  of  the  temple  was  called  the  holy  of 
holies ;  but  then  it  was  because  of  some  especial  and 
peculiar  relationship  which  it  had  to  God.  He  dwelt 
in  it.  It  was  set  ajpart  as  pre-eminently  and  exclu- 
sively appropriate  to  God.  In  this  sense  the  yet 
unconscious  human  nature  of  Christ  may  be  denomi- 
nated holy^  for  it  was  the  habitation  of  Gocl,  and 
singularly  and  exclusively  appropriate  to  him,  differ- 
ing in  this  respect  essentially  and  entirely  from  that 
6* 


66  CHARACTER   OF  INFANTS. 

of  any  of  ij^e  descendants  of  Adam." — Duffield  on 
Regeneration,  p.  353. 

Querist. — If  infants  are  not  sinful  before  they 
arrive  at  moral  agency,  and  have  no  legal  or  cove- 
nant connection  with  Adam  as  their  representative, 
how  can  you  account  for  their  death  ? 

Mr.  Duffield. — "  There  is  no  manner  of  necessity, 
in  order  to  account  for  the  death  of  infants,  to  sup- 
pose that  the  sin  of  Adam  became  their  personal  sin, 
either  in  respect  of  its  act,  or  its  ill  desert.  Their 
death  eventuates  according  to  that  law  of  depend- 
ence, which  marks  the  whole  government  of  God  in 
this  world,  by  virtue  of  which  the  consequences  of  the 
act  of  one  man  terminate  ofttimes  on  the  person  of 
another,  when  there  is  not  the  union  of  representa- 
tion."— Duffield  on  Regeneration,  p.  389. 

Professor  Goodrich,  of  New  Haven. — "  Infants  die. 
The  answer  has  been  given  a  thousand  times ;  brutes 
die  also.  But,  ....  ''animals  are  not  subjects  of 
the  moral  government  of  God.  Neither  are  infants 
previous  to  moral  agency ;  for  what  has  moral  gov- 
ernment to  do  with  those  who  are  not  moral  agents?" 

''Animals,  and  infants   previous   to  moral 

agency  do,  therefore,  stand  on  precisely  the  same 
ground  in  reference  to  this  subject.  Suffering  and 
death  afford  no  more  evidence  of  sin  in  the  one  case 
than  in  the  other." — Christian  Spectator,  1829, 
p.  373 — attributed  to  Professor  Goodrich. 

Querist. — If  infants  do  not  possess  a  corrupt  na- 
ture, please  to  inform  me  by  what  process  they 
become  sinful — and  how  it  happens  that  not  one  of 


HOW   DEPRAVITY    COMMENCES.  67 

the  human  family  born  in  the  ordinary  way  has  ever 
escaped  this  catastrophe. 

Professor  Goodrich. — "A  child  enters  the  world 
with  a  variety  of  appetites  and  desires,  which  are  gen- 
erally acknowledged  to  be  neither  sinful  nor  holy. 
Committed  in  a  state  of  utter  helplessness,  to  the  as- 
siduity of  parental  fondness,  it  commences  existence, 
the  object  of  unceasing  care,  watchfulness,  and  con- 
cession to  those  around  him.  Under  such  circum- 
stances it  is  that  the  natural  appetites  are  first  deve- 
loped, and  each  advancing  month  brings  them  new 
objects  of  gratification.  The  obvious  consequence  is, 
that  self-indulgence  becomes  the  master  principle  in 
the  soul  of  every  child,  long  before  it  can  understand 
that  this  self-indulgence  will  interfere  with  the  rights 
or  intrench  on  the  happiness  of  others.  Thus,  by 
repetition,  is  the  force  of  constitutional  propensities 
accumulating  a  bias  towards  self-gratification,  which 
becomes  incredibly  strong  before  a  knowledge  of  duty 
or  a  sense  of  right  and  wrong  can  possibly  have  en- 
tered the  mind.     That  moment — the  commencement 

of  moral  agency,  at  length  arrives." "Why 

then  is  it  so  necessary  to  suppose  some  distinct  evil 
propensity — some  fountain  of  iniquity  in  the  breast 

of  the   child  previous  to  moral  action?" 

"But  let  us  look  at  facts.  Angels  sinned.  Was  the 
cause  which  led  to  their  first  act  of  rebellion,  in  itself 
sinful?  Eve  was  tempted  and  fell.  Was  her  natural 
appetite  for  food,  or  her  desire  for  knowledge — to 
which  the  temptation  was  addressed — a  sinful  feeling  ? 
And   why  may  not   our   constitutional   propensities 


68  HOW   DEPRAVITY   COMMENCES. 

now,  lead  to  the  same  result  at  the  commencement  of 
moral  agency,  as  was  actually  exhibited  in  fallen 
angels  and  our  first  parents,  even  when  advanced  in 
holiness?"  ....  "Did  not  vehement  desire  produce 
sin  in  Adam's  first  act  of  transgression?  Was  there 
any  previous  principle  of  depravity  in  him?  Why 
then  may  not  strong  constitutional  desires  be  fol- 
lowed now  by  a  choice  of  their  objects  as  well  as  in 
the  case  of  Adam?" — Christian  Spectator,  1829, 
pp.  366,  367,  368. 

Mr.   Duffield. — The  infant  "is  placed  in  a  rebel- 
lious world,  subject  to  the   influence  of  ignorance, 
with   very   limited   and    imperfect    experience,    and 
liable  to  the  strong  impulses  of  appetite  and  pas- 
sion." ....  "Instinct,  animal   sensation,  constitu- 
tional susceptibilities   create  an  impulse,  which  not 
being  counteracted  by  moral  considerations  or  gra- 
cious influence,  lead  the  will  in  a  wrong  direction  and 
to  wrong  objects.     It  was  thus  that  sin  was  induced 
in  our  holy  progenitors.     No  one  can  plead  in  Eve 
an  efficient  cause  of  sin  resident  in  her  nature  (any 
l^rava  vis)  or  operative  power,  sinful  in  itself,  ante- 
rior to  and  apart  from  her  own  voluntary  acts.     And 
if  she  was  led  into  sin,  though  characteristically  holy, 
and  destitute  of  any  innate  propensity  to  sin,  where 
is  the  necessity  for  supposing  that  the  sins  of  her 
progeny  are  to  be  referred  to  such  a  cau^e?"  .... 
"Temptation  alone  is  sufficient  under  present  circum- 
stances. "-i)i<^e?cZ  on  Regeneration,  pp.  310,  379,  380. 
"Mr.   Finney. — "If  it  be  asked  how  it  happens 
that  children  universally  adopt  the  principle  of  self- 


VIEWS   OP  DR.    TAYLOR.  69 

isliness,  unless  their  nature  is  sinful,  I  answer, 
that  they  adopt  the  principle  of  self-gratification  or 
selfishness,  because  they  possess  human  nature,  and 
come  into  being  under  the  peculiar  circumstances  in 
which  all  the  children  of  Adam  are  born  since  the 
fall;  but  not  because  human  nature  is  itself  sinful. 
The  cause  of  their  becoming  sinners  is  to  be  found  in 
their  nature  being  what  it  is,  and  surrounded  by  the 
peculiar  circumstances  of  temptation  to  which  they 
are  exposed  in  a  world  of  sinners."  ....  "Adam 
was  created  in  the  perfection  of  manhood^  certainly 
not  with  a  sinful  nature^  and  yet  an  appeal  to  his 
innocent,  constitutional  appetites  led  him  into  sin. 
If  adult  Adam,  without  a  sinful  nature,  and  after  a 
season  of  obedience  and  perfect  holiness,  was  led  to 
change  his  mind  by  an  appeal  to  his  innocent,  consti- 
tutional propensities,  how  can  the  fact  that  infants 
possessing  the  same  nature  with  Adam,  and  sur- 
rounded by  circumstances  of  still  greater  temptation, 
universally  fall  into  sin,  prove  that  their  nature  is 
itself  sinful  ?  Is  such  an  inference  called  for  ?  Is  it 
legitimate  ?  What !  holy  and  adult  Adam  is  led,  by 
an  appeal  to  his  innocent  constitution,  to  adopt  the 
principle  of  selfishness,  and  no  suspicion  is  or  can  be 
entertained,  that  he  had  a  sinful  nature ;  but  if  little 
children  under  circumstances  of  temptation,  aggra- 
vated by  the  fall,  are  led  into  sin,  we  are  to  believe 
that  their  nature  is  sinful !  This  is  wonderful  phi- 
losophy!"— Salmons  on  Important  Subjects,  p.  157. 

Dr.  Taylor. — "  If  no  being  can  sin  without  a  con- 
stitutional propensity  to  sin,  how  came  Adam  to  sin  ? 


70  VIEWS   OF  DR.    TAYLOR. 

If  one  being,  as  Adam,  can  sin,  and  did  in  fact  sin 
"without  such  a  propensity  to  sin,  why  may  not 
others?" — S'pirit  of  the  Pilgrims,  vol.  6,  p.  13,  as 
quoted  by  Dow. 

Querist. — Do  you  accord,  Dr.  Taylor,  with  the 
sentiment  just  expressed  by  Mr.  Finney,  that  "m- 
fants  possess  the  same  nature  with  Adam'*  at  his 
creation  ? 

Dr.  Taylor. — "Mankind  come  into  the  world  with 
the  same  nature  in  kind  as  that  with  which  Adam 
was  created." — Ibid.  vol.  6,  p.  5. 

Querist. — What  influence  then  has  the  fall  exerted 
on  the  posterity  of  Adam  ? 

Dr.  Taylor. — "I  answer,  that  it  may  have  been  to 
change  their  nature,  not  in  kind,  but  degree." — Ibid, 
vol.  6.  p.  12. 

Querist. — On  the  supposition  that  the  nature  of 
Adam  and  that  of  his  posterity  were  alike  in  kind, 
why  did  not  he  sin  as  soon  as  he  commenced  his 
moral  existence? 

Dr.  Taylor. — "I  answer,  that  the  reason  may  have 
been,  that  his  nature  differed,  not  in  kind,  but  in 
degree  from  that  of  his  posterity." — Ibid. 

Querist. — On  this  principle,  in  what  respect  did 
the  human  nature  of  Christ  differ  from  that  of  other 
children  ? — and  if  he  possessed  in  his  human  nature, 
what  other  children  possess,  why  did  he  not  exhibit 
the  same  moral  character? 

Dr.  Taylor. — "I  might  answer  as  before,  that  his 
human  nature  may  have  differed  from  that  of  other 
children  not  in  kind,  but  degree.'' — Ibid. 


VIEWS   OF   PELAGIUS.  71 

We  have  given  the  preceding  quotations  at  con- 
siderable length,  that  those  readers  who  may  not  have 
attended  to  the  controversy,  may  perceive  from  their 
own  statements,  its  various  bearings  and  tendencies; 
and  how  far  those  have  gone  who  have  been  bold 
enough  to  follow  out  their  principles  to  their  legiti- 
mate and  full  results.  We  do  not  attribute  to  all 
whose  names  we  have  introduced,  every  sentiment 
which  has  been  advanced  by  some  of  them — but  it 
cannot  fail,  we  think,  to  strike  the  mind  of  the 
reader  that  there  is  such  an  affinity  between  the 
several  parts  of  the  series,  that  the  man  who  adopts 
one  of  the  doctrines  in  this  category,  will  be  in  great 
danger  of  ultimately  embracing  the  whole.  They  all 
belong  to  the  same  system;  and  ought  therefore  to 
be  introduced  in  stating  the  distinguishing  features  of 
the  New  Theology ;  though  many  who  adhere  to  the 
system  in  part,  do  not  go  to  the  ne  phis  idtra  of  the 
scheme,  as  it  is  here  exhibited. 


CHAPTER  lY. 

REMARKS    ON    IMPUTATION,    ORIGINAL    SIN,    &C.,    WITH    REFERENCE 
TO    THE    VIEWS    PRESENTED    IN    THE    PRECEDING    CHAPTER. 

The  controversy  respecting  our  connection  with 
Adam,  and  the  influence  produced  upon  us  by  the 
fall,  commenced  early  in  the  fifth  century,  when 
PelagiuSj  a  British  monk,  published  opinions  at  vari- 


72  VIEWS   OP   PELAGIUS. 

ance  with  the  common  doctrines  of  the  church.  He 
and  his  followers  entertained  substantially  the  same 
views  which  have  been  exhibited  in  the  preceding 
chapter;  though  they  adopted  a  method  somewhat 
different  to  account  for  the  commission  of  sin  by  little 
children,  and  went  farther  in  their  views  concerning 
the  influence  of  Adam's  sin  upon  his  descendants. 
They  maintained  that  "the  sin  of  Adam  injured 
himself  alone,  and  did  not  affect  his  posterity;"  and 
that  we  sin  only  by  "imitation."  But  their  senti- 
ments concerning  the  nature  of  sin,  original  sin,  and 
imputation,  were  the  same  with  those  which  dis- 
tinguish the  New  Theology. 

Concerning  the  first,  Pelagius  says,  "  And  here,  in 
my  opinion,  the  first  inquiry  ought  to  be.  What  is 
sin  9  Is  it  a  substance,  or  is  it  a  mere  name  devoid 
of  substance;  not  a  thing,  not  an  existence,  not  a 
body,  nor  any  thing  else  (which  has  a  separate  exist- 
ence) but  an  act;  and  if  this  is  its  nature,  as  I 
believe  it  is,  how  could  that  which  is  devoid  of  sub- 
stance debilitate  or  change  human  nature?" 

"Every  thing,  good  or  evil,  praiseworthy  or  censu- 
rable, which  we  possess,  did  not  originate  with  us,  but 
is  done  by  us;  for  we  are  born  capable  both  of  good 
and  evil,  but  not  in  possession  of  these  qualities ;  for 
in  our  birth  we  are  equally  destitute  of  virtue  and 
vice;  and  previously  to  moral  agency,  there  is  noth- 
ing in  man  but  that  which  God  created  in  him." — 
biblical  ReiJertorif. 

This  question  concerning  the   nature  of  sin  was 
regarded  as  decisive  concerning  the  other  two;  and 


NATURE   OF   SIN.  73 

it  "was  introduced  by  Pelagius  with  that  view.  Says 
he,  "It  is  disputed  concerning  this,  whether  our 
nature  is  debilitated  and  deteriorated  by  sin.  And 
here,  in  my  opinion,  the  first  inquiry  ought  to  be, 
what  is  sin?"  &c.  So  it  is  regarded  at  the  present 
time.  Says  Mr.  Finney,  "In  order  to  admit  the  sin- 
fulness of  nature,  we  must  believe  sin  to  consist  in 
the  substance  of  the  constitution,  instead  of  voluntary 
action,  which  is  a  thing  impossible." — Sermons  on 
Important  Subjects,  p.  158. 

Mr.  Dufiield,  after  stating  several  things  which  he 
supposes  may  be  meant  by  the  phrase  original  sin, 
gives  as  the  views  of  the  Westminster  divines,  that  it 
denotes  "  something  which  has  the  power  to  originate 
sin,  and  which  is  necessarily  involved  in  our  very 
being,  from  the  first  moment  of  its  origination.'* 
This  he  intimates  was  intended  by  the  expression  in 
our  Catechism,  "the  corruption  of  our  whole  nature." 
He  then  says,  (after  some  preliminaries)  "It  is 
strange  that  ever  it  should  have  been  made  a  ques- 
tion, whether  sin  may  be  predicated  of  being  or  simple 
existence,  since  sin  is  undeniably  an  act  of  a  moral 
character,  and  therefore  can  only  be  committed  by 
one  who  is  possessed  of  moral  powers,  i.  e.  one  who 
is  capable  of  acting  according  as  the  law  requires  or 

prohibits." "Holiness,   or  sin  which   is   its 

opposite,  has   a  direct  and  immediate   reference  to 
those  voluntary  acts  and  exercises,  which  the  law  is 

designed  to  secure  or  prevent." "How  very 

absurd,  therefore,  is  it  to  predicate  sin  of  that  which 
does    not   fall   under    cognizance    of    law   at    all!" 


74  VIEWS   OF   PELAGIUS;    ETC. 

Though  he  uses  the  phrase  "being  or  simple  exist- 
ence," as  that  concerning  which  it  is  absurd  to  pre- 
dicate sin,  he  refers  unquestionably  to  the  expression 
in  the  Catechism  which  he  had  just  quoted,  and  upon 
which  he  was  remarking,  viz.  "the  corruption  of  our 
whole  nature."  It  is  absurd,  therefore,  according  to 
him,  to  speak  of  our  having  a  corrupt  nature,  since, 
as  he  maintains,  all  sin  consists  in  voluntary  acts  of  a 
moral  agent,  in  violation  of  a  known  law.  Hence  the 
imputation  of  Adam's  first  sin  to  his  posterity,  and 
original  sin,  are  rejected  as  unphilosophical  and 
absurd. 

Says  Pelagius,  "When  it  is  declared  that  all  have 
sinned  in  Adam,  it  sliould  not  he  understood  of  any 
original  sin  contracted  hy  their  birth,  but  of  imita- 
tion." ....  "How  can  a  man  be  considered  guilty 
by  God  of  that  sin  which  he  knows  not  to  be  his  own  ? 
for  if  it  is  necessary,  it  is  not  his  own ;  but  if  it  is  his 
own,  it  is  voluntary;  and  if  voluntary,  it  can  be 
avoided." 

Julian,  one  of  the  disciples  of  Pelagius,  says, 
"Whoever  is  accused  of  a  crime,  the  charge  is  made 
against  his  conduct,  and  not  against  his  birth."  .  .  . 
"Therefore  we  conclude  that  the  triune  God  should 
be  adored  as  most  just;  and  it  has  been  made  to 
appear  most  irrefragably,  that  the  sin  of  another 
never  can  he  imiouted  hy  him  to  little  children.''  .  .  . 
"Hence  that  is  evident  which  we  defend  as  most 
reasonable,  that  no  one  is  born  in  sin,  and  that  God 
never  judges  men  to  be  guilty  on  account  of  their 
birth." "Children,    inasmuch   as   they  are 


PELAGIANISM   CONDEMNED.  75 

children,  never  can  be  guilty,  until  they  have  done 
something  by  their  own  proper  will." — Biblical  Rep- 
ertory. 

How  striking  is  the  resemblance  between  these 
views  and  the  following  remarks  of  Mr.  Barnes: 
''When  Paul,"  says  he,  "states  a  simple  fact,  men 
often  advance  a  theory.  ...  A  melancholy  instance 
of  this  we  have  in  the  account  which  the  apostle 
gives,  (ch.  5.)  about  the  effect  of  the  sin  of  Adam. 
....  They  have  sought  for  a  theory  to  account  for 
it.  And  many  suppose  they  have  found  it  in  the 
doctrine  that  the  sin  of  Adam  is  imputed,  or  set  over 
by  an  arbitrary  arrangement  to  beings  otherwise 
innocent,  and  that  they  are  held  to  be  responsible  for 
a  deed  committed  by  a  man  thousands  of  years  before 
they  were  born.  This  is  the  theory ;  and  men  insen- 
sibly forget  that  it  is  mere  theory,''  ....  "I  under- 
stand it,  therefore,  [Rom.  v.  12,]  as  referring  to  the 
fact  that  men  sin  in  their  oivn  persons,  sin  in  them- 
selves — as  indeed  how  can  they  sin  in  any  other 
^Sb-yV — J}^otes  on  the  Romans,  pp.  10,  117. 

We  admit  that  this  coincidence  between  the  New- 
school  doctrines  and  Pelagianism,  does  not  afford  cer- 
tain proof  of  their  being  untrue.  It  is  however  a 
strong  presumptive  evidence,  since  Pelagianism  has 
been  rejected  as  heretical  by  every  Evangelical 
Church  in  Christendom. 

Coelestius,  a  disciple  of  Pelagius,  is  said  to  have 
been  more  zealous  and  successful  in  the  propagation 
of  these  errors  than  his  master.  Hence,  in  early 
times,  they  were  perhaps  associated  with  his  name, 


76  DOCTRINE   OF   OUR   STANDARDS. 

more  than  with  that  of  Pelagius.  Among  other  coun- 
cils who  condemned  his  heresy,  was  the  council  of 
Ephesus,  A.  D.  431;  who  ^'denominated  it  the  ivicked 
doctrine  of  Coelestius." — Biblical  Repertory, 

In  a  numher  of  the  Confessions  of  Faith  adopted 
by  different  churches  after  the  Reformation,  Pela- 
gianism  is  mentioned  by  name.  Thus,  in  one  of  the 
Articles  of  the  Episcopal  Church,  it  is  said,  "  Original 
sin  standeth  not  in  the  following  of  Adam^  (as  the 
Pelagians  do  vainly  talk,)  but  it  is  the  fault  and 
corruption  of  the  nature  of  every  man,  that  naturally 
is  engendered  of  the  offspring  of  Adam^  whereby 
man  is  very  far  gone  from  original  righteousness, 
and  is  of  his  own  nature  inclined  to  evil." 

Though  in  the  Westminster  Confession,  this  her- 
esy is  not  expressly  named,  there  can  be  no  doubt 
that  the  framers  intended  to  reject  and  condemn  it. 
Compare  the  preceding  doctrines  of  Pelagius  and  his 
followers  with  our  quotations  from  the  Confession  of 
Faith  in  chap.  iii. ;  also  the  following  from  the 
Larger  Catechism:  "The  sinfulness  of  that  estate 
whereinto  man  fell,  consisteth  in  the  guilt  of  Adanis 
first  sin,  the  want  of  that  righteousness  wherein 
he  was  created,  and  the  corruption  of  his  nature, 
whereby  he  is  utterly  indisposed,  disabled,  and  made 
opposite  unto  all  that  is  spiritually  good,  and  wholly 
inclined  to  all  evil,  and  that  continually:  which  is 
commonly  called  original  sin,  and  from  which  do 
proceed  all  actual  transgressions." 

We  have  said  that  the  denial  of  the  doctrine  of 
imputation  and  original  sin,  arises  in  part  from  the 


ALL  SIN  DOES  NOT  CONSIST  IN  ACTS.        77 

adoption  of  the  theory  that  all  sin  consists  in  acts. 
Upon  this  point,  therefore,  it  will  be  pertinent  to 
make  a  few  remarks. 

1.  Holiness  and  sin  are  predicated  of  the  heart. 
Thus  the  Bible  speaks  of  an  honest  and  good  heart, 
a  broken  heart,  a  clean  heart,  an  evil  heart,  a  hard 
heart,  &c.,  which  convey  the  idea  that  there  is  some- 
thing in  man  of  a  moral  character,  prior  to  his  acts — 
something  which  forms  the  basis  from  which  his  good 
and  evil  actions  proceed;  and  which  determines  the 
character  of  those  actions.  Hence  holiness  and  sin 
do  not  consist  wholly  in  acts,  but  belong  to  our 
nature. 

2.  We  are  said  to  be  conceived  and  born  in  sin ; 
and  if  so,  we  must  be  sinful  hy  nature;  for  we  have 
not  then  put  forth  any  moral  acts. 

3.  We  are  declared  to  be  by  nature  the  children  of 
wrath — and  if  children  of  wrath  by  nature,  then  we 
must  be  hy  nature^  siniiers,  for  sin  alone  exposes  to 
wrath.     All  sin  therefore  cannot  consist  in  acts. 

4.  Adam  was  created  in  the  image  of  God — which 
according  to  our  standards,  consisted  in  "  knowledge, 
righteousness,  and  holiness."  By  the  fall  this  image 
was  lost.  In  regard  to  sjnritual  things  we  became 
ignorant. — "The  natural  man  discerneth  not  the 
things  of  the  Spirit  of  God,"  &c.  Our  moral  char- 
acters became  corrrupt  and  wicked.  In  other  words, 
we  forfeited  our  original  righteousness  and  became 
prone  to  evil.  By  regeneration  this  image  is  re- 
stored.    Col.  iii.   10:    "And  have  put   on  the  new 

man  which  is  renewed  in  knowledge  after  the  image 

7* 


78  laiAGE   OF   GOD. 

of  him  that  created  him."  Eph.  iv.  24:  "And  that 
ye  put  on  the  new  man,  which  after  God  is  created 
in  righteousness  and  true  Jioliness.'"  These  texts  are 
decisive  as  to  what  the  image  of  God  consisted  in, 
viz.  *' knowledge,  righteousness  and  true  holiness.'* 
Yet  in  this  image  man  was  created;  and  of  course 
possessed  it  before  he  put  forth  moral  acts.  Conse- 
quently all  holiness  and  sin  do  not  consist  in  acts, 
but  may  be  predicated  of  our  nature. 

The  manner  in  which  this  argument  has  been  dis- 
posed of,  is  truly  singular.  On  the  principle  that  all 
holiness  consists  in  acts,  it  cannot  be  created.  This 
the  advocates  of  the  New  Theology  admit.  Since 
then,  Adam  was  created  in  the  image  of  God,  a  new 
theory  must  be  devised  as  to  what  that  image  was. 
In  this,  however,  there  is  not  a  perfect  agreement. 
According  to  Mr.  Finney,  it  consisted  in  moral 
agency.  "In  this  state,  says  he,  [i.  e.  when  Adam 
was  first  created,]  he  was  a  complete  moral  agent, 
and  in  this  respect  in  the  image  of  his  3IaJcer." — 
Sermons  on  Important  Subjects,  p.  11.  Mr.  Duffield 
makes  it  consist  principally  in  some  imaginary  resem- 
blance to  the  Trinity.  "Th-ere  is,  however,"  says  he, 
"one  important  respect  in  which  this  resemblance  in 
man  to  God  may  be  seen,  which,  indeed,  is  generally 
overlooked,  but  which  we  are  disposed  to  think  is  of 
principal  consequence.  It  is  not  one  person  of  the 
Godhead  only  who  is  represented  as  speaking  at  the 
formation  of  man,  but  the  whole  three.  Jehovah,  the 
ever  blessed  Three  in  One,  said,  "  Let  us  make  man 
in  oun  image" — not  in  the  image  of  any  one  person, 


FUTURE   STATE   OF   INFANTS.  79 

nor  of  eacli  distinctly,  but  of  all  conjointly.  How 
admirably  are  the  distinct  personality  and  essential 
unity  of  the  Godhead  represented  or  imaged  in  man 
possessing  three  distinct  kinds  of  life,  and  yet  consti- 
tuting but  one  moral  being !  In  him  are  united  the 
vegetable,  the  animal,  and  the  moral  or  spiritual  life, 
each  having  and  preserving  its  distinct  character,  but 
ail  combined  in  one  responsible  individual." — Duf- 
field  on  Regeneration,  p.  143. 

What  a  pity  it  is  that  the  apostle  Paul  had  not 
become  acquainted  with  this  new  theory  concerning 
the  nature  of  sin  and  holiness !  He  would  not  then 
have  committed  such  a  mistake  in  describing  the 
image  of  God  in  which  man  was  created,  and  to 
which  we  are  restored  by  divine  grace ! 

5.  It  will  be  perceived  by  the  preceding  remarks, 
that  this  doctrine  involves  also  a  new  theory  of  re- 
generation. This  is  not  denied — and  hence  the  sen- 
timents which  have  long  prevailed  on  this  subject  are 
rejected,  and  the  notion  of  gradual  regeneration  by 
moral  suasion,  is  substituted  in  their  place.  But  as 
we  intend  to  exhibit  this  feature  of  the  New  Theology 
more  at  length  in  a  subsequent  chapter,  we  will  not 
dwell  upon  it  here. 

6.  This  doctrine  places  those  who  die  in  infancy  in 
a  most  unenviable  position.  If  all  sin  and  holiness 
consist  in  the  voluntary  acts  of  a  moral  agent,  in- 
fants, before  arriving  at  moral  agency,  have  no  moral 
character;  but  stand  in  respect  to  moral  government 
on  the  same  level  with  brute  animals.  This  is  the 
New-school  doctrine.     Since,  therefore,  thousands  die 


80  '  SALVATION   or  INFANTS. 

in  infancy,  wliere  do  they  go?  If  they  have  no 
moral  character,  the  blessings  of  the  gospel  are  no 
more  adapted  to  them,  than  to  the  brutes.  Hence  if 
they  die  before  they  become  moral  agents,  they 
must  either  be  annihilated,  or  spend  an  eternity  in 
some  unknown  and  inconceivable  state  of  existence — 
neither  in  heaven  nor  hell,  but  possibly  between  the 
two — in  some  limhus  infantum,  similar,  perhaps,  to 
that  of  the  papists ;  yet  with  this  advantage  in  favour 
of  the  latter,  that  their  infants,  possessing  moral 
character,  may  be  renewed  and  saved.  What  a  com- 
fortless doctrine  must  this  be  to  parents,  when  weep- 
ing by  the  cradle  of  expiring  infancy  !* 

7.  The  death  of  infants  affords  strong  proof  of  the 
doctrine  of  imputation  and  original  sin.  If  there  is 
no  legal  connection  between  us  and  Adam,  if  his  sin 
is  not  imputed  to  us,  and  we  are  not  horn  with  a  cor- 
rupt nature,  where  is  the  justice  of  inflicting  upon 
infants  who  have  never  committed  actual  transgres- 
sion, a  part  of  the  penalty  threatened  upon  Adam  for 
his  disobedience? 

8.  The  doctrine  of  imputation  affords  the  only 
evidence  we  can  have,  that  those  dying  in  infancy  are 

*  The  manner  in  whicli  the  advocates  of  the  New  Theology 
attempt  to  relieve  themselves  from  this  difficulty,  is  the  follow- 
ing, viz.  that  the  atonement  places  those  who  die  in  infancy 
in  such  circumstances  in  the  next  world,  as  to  result  in  their 
becoming  holy  at  the  commencement  of  moral  agency.  But 
this  supposition  has  no  foundation  in  Scripture.  Christ  is 
never  represented  as  entering  our  world  to  prevent  men  from 
becoming  sinners,  but  to  save  those  who  were  sinners  already. 


GOSPEL  PLAN  OF  SALVATION.  81 

saved.  If  Adam's  sin  was  not  imputed  to  them  for 
their  condemnation,  how  can  the  righteousness  of 
Christ  be  imputed  to  them  for  their  justification? 
Christ  came  to  "seek  and  save  that  which  was  lost" 
— "to  save  sinners" — he  saves  no  others.  If,  there- 
fore, they  were  not  lost  in  Adam — if  they  were  not 
made  sinners  by  his  sin — Christ  did  not  come  to  save 
them.  But  he  did  come  to  save  such.  He  says, 
"Suffer  little  children  to  come  unto  me  and  forbid 
them  not,  for  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven." 
They  are  therefore  sinners — and  as  they  lost  their 
original  righteousness  through  the  first  Adam,  the 
foundation  was  laid  for  their  restoration  and  salvation 
through  the  second.  On  any  other  principle  there 
would  be  no  hope  in  their  case.  But  here  is  ground 
for  consolation.     In  the  language  of  Dr.  Watts, 

"A  thousand  new-born  babes  are  dead, 
By  fatal  union  to  their  head : 
But  -whilst  our  spirits,  filled  with  awe, 
Behold  the  terrors  of  thy  law, 
We  si-ng  the  honours  of  thy  grace, 
That  sent  to  save  our  ruined  race : 
Adam  the  second,  from  the  dust 
Raises  the  ruins  of  the  first." 

9.  The  doctrine  of  imputation  is  essential  to  a  cor- 
rect  view  of  the  plan  of  salvation.  As  Dr.  Hodge 
has  well  expressed  it:  "The  denial  of  this  doctrine 
involves  also  the  denial  of  the  scriptural  view  of  the 
atonement  and  justification.  It  is  essential  to  the 
scriptural  form  of  these  doctrines  that  the  idea  of 
legal  substitution  should  be  retained.     Christ  bore 


82  GOSPEL  PLAN  OP  SALVATION. 

our  sins;  our  iniquities  were  laid  upon  him;  which, 
according  to  the  true  meaning  of  Scripture  language, 
can  only  signify,  that  he  bore  the  punishment  of 
those  sins;  not  the  same  evils  indeed  either  in  kind 
or  degree ;  but  still  penal,  because  judicially  inflicted 
for  the  support  of  law This  idea  of  legal  sub- 
stitution enters  also  into  the  scriptural  view  of  justifi- 
cation. In  justification,  according  to  Paul's  language, 
God  imputes  righteousness  to  the  ungodly.  This 
righteousness  is  not  their  own ;  but  they  are  regarded 
and  treated  as  righteous  on  account  of  the  obedience 
of  Christ.  That  is,  his  righteousness  is  so  laid  to 
their  account,  or  imputed  to  them,  that  they  are 
regarded  and  treated  as  if  it  were  their  own,  or  as 
if  they  had  kept  the  law." — Hodge  on  the  Romans^ 
pp.  127,  128. 

The  connection  of  imputation  with  the  work  of 
Christ,  gives  to  this  doctrine  its  chief  importance. 
The  same  principle  is  applied  in  the  Bible  both  to 
Adam  and  Christ.  If,  therefore,  we  deny  our  legal 
connection  with  Adam,  and  the  imputation  of  his 
first  sin  to  his  posterity,  we  must  necessarily  adopt 
views  concerning  the  method  of  salvation  by  Jesus 
Christ,  materially  difi'erent  from  those  above  given. 
On  the  supposition  that  the  principle  of  representa- 
tion is  inadmissible  in  the  case  of  Adam,  it  must  be 
equally  so  in  reference  to  Christ.  If  we  cannot  be 
condemned  in  law  by  the  disobedience  of  the  one,  we 
cannot  be  justified  by  the  obedience  of  the  other.  A 
blow  is  thus  struck  at  the  foundation  of  our  hope ; — 
a  blow,    which,  if  it  destroys   our  connection  with 


REMARKS    OF   DR.    OWEN.  83 

Adam,  destroys  also  our  connection  with  Christ,  and 
our  title  to  heaven. 

Says  Owen,  "By  some  the  imputation  of  the  actual 
apostacy  and  transgression  of  Adam,  the  head  of  our 
nature,  whereby  his  sin  became  the  sin  of  the  world, 
is  utterly  denied.  Hereby  both  the  ground  the 
the  apostle  proceedeth  on,  in  evincing  the  necessity 
of  our  justification,  or  our  being  made  righteous  by 
the  obedience  of  another,  and  all  the  arguments 
brought  in  confirmation  of  the  doctrine  of  it,  in  the 
fifth  chapter  of  his  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  are  evaded 
and  overthrown.  Socinus  confesseth  that  place  to 
give  great  countenance  unto  the  doctrine  of  justifica- 
tion by  the  imputation  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ ; 
and  therefore  he  sets  himself  to  oppose  with  sundry 
artifices  the  imputation  of  the  sin  of  Adam,  unto  his 
natural  posterity.  For  he  perceived  well  enough  that 
upon  the  admission  thereof,  the  imputation  of  the 
righteousness  of  Christ  unto  his  spiritual  seed,  would 
unavoidably  follow  according  unto  the  tenor  of  the 
apostle's  discourse."  .  .  .  "Some  deny  the  deprava- 
tion and  corruption  of  our  nature,  which  ensued  on 
our  apostacy  from  God,  and  the  loss  of  his  image. 
Or  if  they  do  not  absolutely  deny  it,  yet  they  so 
extenuate  it,  as  to  render  it  a  matter  of  no  great 
concern  unto  us."  ....  "That  deformity  of  soul 
w^hich  came  upon  us  in  the  loss  of  the  image  of  God, 
wherein  the  beauty  and  harmony  of  all  our  faculties, 
in  all  their  actings,  in  order  unto  their  utmost  end, 
did  consist;  that  enmity  unto  God,  even  in  the  mind 
which  ensued  thereon ;  that  darkness  with  which  our 


84  IMPUTATION   AND   ORIGINAL   SIN. 

understandings  were  clouded,  yea,  blinded  withal; 
the  spiritual  death  which  passed  on  the  whole  soul, 
and  total  alienation  from  the  life  of  God ;  that  impo- 
tency  unto  good,  that  inclination  unto  evil,  that 
deceitfulness  of  sin,  that  power  and  efficacy  of  cor- 
rupt lusts,  which  the  Scriptures  and  experience  so 
fully  charge  on  the  state  of  lost  nature,  are  rejected 
as  empty  notions,  or  fables.  No  wonder  if  such  per- 
sons look  upon  imputed  righteousness  as  the  shadow  of 
a  dream,  who  esteem  those  things  which  evidence  its 
necessity  to  be  but  fond  imaginations.  And  small  hope 
is  there  to  bring  such  men  to  value  the  righteousness 
of  Christ,  as  imputed  to  them,  who  are  so  unacquaint- 
ed with  their  own  unrighteousness  inherent  in  them." 

10.  The  Scripture  proofs  relied  upon  to  establish 
the  doctrine  of  imputation  and  original  sin,  are  such 
as  the  following.  John  iii.  3,  6:  "Except  a  man  be 
born  again  he  cannot  see  the  kingdom  of  God.  That 
which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh,  and  that  which 
is  born  of  the  Spirit  is  spirit."  Here  our  first  or 
natural  birth  is  contrasted  with  our  second  or  spiritual 
birth.  If  at  the  first  we  are  unfit  for  the  kingdom  of 
heaven,  and  are  qualified  only  by  the  second,  then  it 
is  clear  we  are  horn  sinners. 

Rom.  V.  12 — 21.  "As  by  one  man  sin  entered  into 
the  world  and  death  by  sin,  so  death  passed  upon  all 
men,  for  that  all  have  sinned,  &c.  We  have  already 
quoted  some  remarks  on  this  passage  from  President 
Edwards,  in  the  last  chapter,  to  which  we  refer  the 
reader.  The  quotation  commences  as  follows :  "  The 
doctrine  of  the  corruption  of  nature^  derived  from 


SCRirTURAL  PROOFS.  85 

Adam,  and  also  the  imputation  of  his  first  sin,  are 
both  clearly  taught  in  it,"  &c.  The  phrases,  "for 
that,  or  in  whom  all  have  sinned/'  "through  the 
oJBfence  of  one  many  be  dead,''  "the  judgment  was  by 
one  to  condemnation,"  "by  one  man's  offence,  death 
reigned  by  one,"  "by  one  man's  disobedience  many 
were  made  sinners,"  and  other  similar  ones,  contain 
so  exact  a  description  of  the  doctrine,  that  the  proof 
which  they  furnish  would  not  be  more  conclusive,  if 
the  very  words  impute  and  original  sin  had  been 
introduced. 

Rom.  vii.  18 — 23.  "  For  I  know  that  in  me  (that 
is  in  my  flesh)  dwelleth  no  good  thing;  for  to  will  is 
present  with  me ;  but  how  to  perform  that  which  is 
good,  I  find  not,"  &c.  This  struggle  between  the 
old  and  new  man,  between  indwelling  sin  and  the 
principle  of  grace,  affords  strong  evidence  of  the 
natural  propensity  of  man  to  sin. 

1  Cor.  XV.  22.  "For  as  in  Adam  all  die,  even  so 
in  Christ  shall  all  be  made  alive."  By  simply  revers- 
ing the  order  of  the  passage,  its  relevancy  to  our 
present  purpose  will  be  manifest.  As  all  who  shall 
be  made  alive  will  enjoy  this  blessing  by  virtue  of 
their  connection  with  Christ  as  their  covenant  head ; 
so  all  who  die,  experience  this  calamity  in  conse- 
quence of  a  similar  connection  with  Adam ;  who 
"  being  the  root  of  all  mankind,  the  guilt  of  [his  first 
sin]  was  imputed,  and  the  same  death  in  sin,  and 
corrupted  nature,  conveyed  to  all  his  posterity,  des- 
cending from  him  by  ordinary  generation." 

Eph.  ii.  3.     "  And  were  by  nature  the  children  of 
8 


86  SCRIPTURAL   PROOFS. 

wrath,  even  as  others."  This  has  been  generally 
understood,  both  by  ancient  and  modern  commenta- 
tors, as  teaching  the  doctrine  that  we  are  born  in  a 
state  of  sin  and  condemnation.  If  we  are  children  of 
wrath  by  nature,  we  must  have  been  born  in  that 
condition;  and  if  born  children  of  wrath,  we  must 
have  been  born  in  sin. 

In  the  Old  Testament,  the  following  among  others 
may  be  referred  to.  Gen.  vi.  5:  "And  God  saw 
that  the  wickedness  of  man  was  great  in  the  earth, 
and  every  imagination  of  the  thoughts  of  his  heart 
was  only  evil  continually."  This  is  descriptive  not 
of  one  man  only,  but  of  the  race ;  and  how  can  this 
universal  corruption  be  accounted  for  except  on  the 
principle  of  original  sin?  Job  xiv.  4:  "Who  can 
bring  a  clean  thing  out  of  an  unclean?  not  one."  If, 
then,  parents  are  "unclean,"  if  they  are  universally 
sinful,  children  inherit  from  them  the  same  charac- 
ter. Psal.  li.  5:  "Behold,  I  was  shapen  in  iniquity, 
and  in  sin  did  my  mother  conceive  me."  This  is  an 
express  declaration  that  the  Psalmist  was  conceived 
in  sin;  and  if  it  was  true  of  him,  it  is  true  of  all 
others.  These  three  passages  taken  in  connection, 
form  a  complete  syllogism  in  support  of  this  doctrine. 
If  the  first  of  them  is  applicable  to  all  mankind,  as 
appears  from  the  similarity  of  that  description,  and 
those  given  by  David  and  Paul ;  and  if  the  two  latter 
exhibit  the  fountain  from  which  the  evil  imaginations 
of  the  heart  take  their  rise,  as  they  appear  clearly  to 
indicate ;  then  all  men  possess  a  depraved  and  sinful 
nature,  inherited  from  their  parents. 


OUR   CONNECTION   WITH   ADAM.  87 

As  the  chief  object  of  the  present  volume  Is  to 
exhibit  the  difference  between  the  Old  and  New  The- 
ology, we  have  not  thought  it  expedient  to  enter 
largely  upon  the  proofs  in  favour  of  the  former.  But 
what  has  been  adduced  is  sufficient,  we  think,  to 
show  the  truth  of  the  Old  system,  in  opposition  to 
the  New,  and  to  serve  as  a  kind  of  index  to  a  more 
minute  and  extensive  examination  of  the  subject. 

Before  closing  the  chapter  we  will  make  a  few 
remarks  on  the  charge  of  injustice^  which  is  brought 
against  the  views  entertained  by  the  Old-school  di- 
vines, with  regard  to  this  subject.  We  believe  it  to 
be  wholly  unfounded;  but  against  the  opposite  the- 
ory, it  might  be  made  to  lie  with  great  force.  Does 
any  one  pronounce  it  unjust  for  a  man  to  be  held 
liable  for  a  debt  contracted  by  one  of  his  ancestors, 
provided  in  becoming  his  heir,  that  was  made  one 
of  the  legal  conditions  by  which  he  should  inherit 
his  estate  ?  But  suppose  he  had  no  legal  connection 
with  him  at  all,  but  simply  the  relation  of  natural 
descent — which,  according  to  the  New-school  doc- 
trine, is  our  only  connection  with  Adam — where 
would  be  the  justice  in  holding  him  responsible  for 
the  payment  of  his  ancestor's  debts?  He  sustains 
to  him,  remember,  no  legal  connection,  but  is  held 
responsible,  merely  because  he  is  his  descendant.  Is 
this  just? — Since  then  all  are  obliged  to  admit  that 
we  suffer  evils  in  consequence  of  Adam's  sin,  why 
not  adopt  the  scripture  doctrine,  that  being  included 
with  him  in  the  covenant  of  works,  we  became  legally 
involved  in  the  ruin  brought  upon  the  world  by  his 


88  OBSERVATIONS   AND   REMARKS. 

sin?  This  covenant  or  legal  connection,  renders  it 
just  that  we  should  inherit  these  calamities — but  on 
any  other  principle  their  infliction  upon  us  can  not  be 
easily  explained,  without  bearing  painfully  upon  the 
justice  of  God's  dispensations. 

Such  is  the  organization  of  human  governments, 
that  we  are  usually  connected  in  law  with  those  from 
whom  we  have  descended — and  there  is  a  fitness  and 
propriety  in  this  arrangement.  Hence,  unless  spe- 
cial provision  is  made  to  the  contrary,  the  natural 
descendant  becomes  the  legal  heir.  Such  also  is  the 
divine  economy  with  regard  to  man.  The  appoint- 
ment of  Adam  as  our  federal  head  was  not  altogether 
arbitrary,  as  it  would  have  been,  had  he  been  ap- 
pointed the  federal  head  of  angels — but  it  was  ac- 
cording to  the  fitness  of  things.  Hence  our  natu- 
ral relation  is  made  use  of  as  the  medium  of  bringing 
about  those  results,  which  have  their  origin  in  our 
federal  relation.  Original  sin  flows  to  us  through  the 
channel  of  natural  descent — and  various  evils  which 
now  flow  from  parent  to  child,  descend  in  the  same 
way : — but  their  foundation  must  be  traced  back  to 
the  covenant  made  with  our  first  father,  as  the  repre- 
sentative of  his  posterity ;  the  guilt  of  whose  first  sin 
being  imputed  to  us,  a  corrupt  and  depraved  nature 
and  other  penal  evils  follow  as  the  consequence.  Is 
any  one  disposed  to  say,  I  never  gave  my  consent  to 
that  covenant,  and  therefore  it  is  unjust  to  punish  me 
for  its  violation  ?  We  ask  in  return,  whether  the  indi- 
vidual whose  case  has  been  supposed,  gave  his  con- 
sent that  his  ancestor  should  leave  the  estate  which 


THE    SUFFERINGS   OF   CHRIST.  89 

he  has  inherited  from  him,  encumbered  with  debt. 
And  yet,  no  sane  man  would  ever  think  of  calling  in 
question  the  propriety  of  his  being  held  responsible. 
If,  however,  he  had  no  legal  connection  with  that 
ancestor,  his  natural  relation  would  not  be  sufficient 
to  bind  him.  He  is  his  heir,  not  merely  because  he 
has  descended  from  him,  but  because  the  law  of  the 
land  has  made  him  such.  The  latter  and  not  the 
former,  imposes  upon  him  the  liabilities  which  his 
ancestor  incurred ;  and  though  he  never  gave  his 
consent,  he  regards  it  as  just  and  right. 


CHAPTER  V. 

THE  SUFFERINGS  OF  CHRIST  AND  OUR  JUSTIFICATION  THRCUOn  HIM. 

The  nature  and  design  of  Christ's  suiferings  are  gen- 
erally described  by  theological  writers  of  the  present 
day,  under  the  name  of  Atonement- — a  term  not 
found  in  our  standards,  and  but  once  in  the  English 
version  of  the  New  Testament.  For  a  considerable 
time  after  the  Reformation,  the  mediatorial  work  of 
Christ  was  commonly  expressed  by  the  words,  recon- 
ciliation^ redemption^  and  satisfaction:  which  are  the 
terms  employed  in  our  Confession  of  Faith.  This 
accounts  for  the  fact  that  the  word  atonement  does 
not  occur  in  that  volume.  The  mere  use  of  a  term  is 
of  little  consequence,  provided  the  true  doctrine  is 
retained.  But  many  have  not  only  laid  aside  the 
8* 


90  EXPLANATORY   REMARKS. 

ancient  phraseology,  but  with  it,  all  that  is  valuable 
in  the  atonement  itself.  Instead  of  allowing  it  to  be 
any  proper  satisfaction  to  divine  justice,  by  which  a 
righteous  and  holy  God  is  propitiated;  some  affirm 
that  it  was  designed  merely  to  make  an  impression 
on  intelligent  beings  of  the  righteousness  of  God, 
thus  opening  the  way  for  pardon ;  and  others,  that  it 
was  intended  only  to  produce  a  change  in  the  sinner 
himself  by  the  influence  which  the  scenes  of  Calvary 
are  calculated  to  exert  on  his  mind.  The  latter  is 
the  Socinian  view,  and  the  second  that  of  the  New- 
school. 

It  is  proper  to  remark  that  the  view  first  alluded 
to,  includes  the  other  two.  While  it  regards  the 
atonement  as  primarily  intended  to  satisfy  the  jus- 
tice of  God,  by  answering  the  demands,  and  sufiering 
the  penalty  of  his  law,  it  was  designed  and  adapted 
to  make  a  strong  impression  both  upon  the  universe 
and  upon  the  sinner  himself.  But  though  the  first 
view  includes  the  others  as  the  greater  does  the  less, 
these  do  not  include  the  first,  but  reject  it.  By 
making  the  atonement  consist  wholly  in  the  second 
or  third  view,  there  is  involved  a  denial  that  Christ 
endured  the  penalty  of  the  law,  or  assumed  any  legal 
responsibility  in  our  behalf,  or  made  any  satisfaction, 
strictly  speaking,  to  the  justice  of  God — thus  giving 
up  what  has  been  regarded  by  most,  if  not  all  evan- 
gelical churches  since  the  Reformation,  as  essential  to 
the  atonement. 

We  wish  to  observe  farther,  by  way  of  explanation, 
that  by  Christ's  enduring  the  penalty  of  the  law,  is 


THE   SUFFERINGS   OF   CHRIST.  91 

not  meant  that  lie  endured  literally  the  same  suffer- 
ing either  in  land ^or  duration  which  would  have  been 
inflicted  upon  the  sinner,  if  a  Saviour  had  not  been 
provided.  In  a  penalty,  some  things  are  essential — 
others  incidental.  It  was  essential  to  the  penalty, 
that  Christ  should  suffer  a  violent  and  ignominious 
death — but  whether  he  should  die  by  decapitation  or 
by  crucifixion,  was  incidental.  It  was  essential  that 
he  should  suffer /or  our  sins — but  how  lon(/  his  suffer- 
ings should  continue,  was  incidental.  If  inflicted 
upon  us,  they  must  necessarily  be  eternal — because 
sin  is  an  infinite  evil,  and  finite  beings  cannot  endure 
the  punishment  which  is  due  to  it,  except  by  an 
eternal  duration.  But  from  the  infinite  dignity  of 
Christ's  character,  the  penal  demands  of  the  law 
could  be  fully  answered  by  his  suffering  ever  so  short 
a  time.  A  similar  remark  may  be  made  concerning 
the  remorse  of  conscience  which  forms  a  part  of  the 
torments  of  the  wicked.  The  imputation  of  our  sins 
to  Christ  does  not  involve  a  transfer  of  moral  charac- 
ter, but  only  of  legal  responsibility.  In  being 
"made  sin  for  us,"  Christ  did  not  become  personally 
a  sinner — but  "was  holy  and  harmless  and  unde- 
filed."  Of  course  he  could  have  no  remorse  of  con- 
science, such  as  a  convicted  sinner  suffers  in  view  of 
his  guilt.  But  this  is  merely  incidental,  and  depends 
upon  circumstances.  Some  sinners  never  appear  to 
feel  remorse  at  all — and  no  sinner,  probably,  feels  it 
at  all  times.  What  is  intended  then  by  Christ's  suf- 
fering the  penalty  of  the  law  as  our  substitute  is,  that 


92  DR.    BEMAN^S   VIEWS. 

in  law  he  assumed  our  place,  and  endured  all  that 
was  essential  in  its  penal  demands — whereby  he  fully 
satisfied  divine  justice,  and  those  who  are  united  to 
him  by  faith,  are,  as  an  act  of  justice  to  Christy  but 
of  free  unbounded  mercy  to  theni^  "  redeemed  from 
the  curse  of  the  law,"  he  "being  made  a  curse  for 
them."  This  doctrine,  the  Old  Theology  maintains 
— the  New  denies. 

The  following  quotations  will  exemplify  the  New- 
school  views.  Dr.  Beman,*  in  his  "  Sermons  on  the 
Doctrine  of  the  Atonement,"  observes:  (p.  34,) 
"  The  law  can  have  no  penal  demand  except  against 
the  offender.  With  a  substitute  it  has  no  concern; 
and  though  a  thousand  substitutes  should  die,  the 
law,  in  itself  considered,  and  left  to  its  own  natural 
operation,  would  have  the  same  demand  upon  the 
transgressor  which  it  always  had.  This  claim  can 
never  be  invalidated.  This  penal  demand  can  never 
be  extinguished."  Speaking  of  those  who  entertain 
opposite  views,  he  says,  (p.  45,)  "  They  contend  that 
the  real  penalty  of  the  law  was  inflicted  on  Christ ; 
and  at  the  same  time  acknowledge  that  the  sufferings 
of  Christ  were  not  the  same,  either  in  nature  or 
deo^ree,  as  those  sufferino;s  which  were  threatened 
against  the  transgressor.  The  words  of  our  text 
[GaL  iii.  13,]  are  considered  by  many  as  furnishing 
unequivocal    testimony    to    the     fact,    that    Christ 

*  Dr.  Beman  has  not,  I  believe,  published  his  sentiments  on 
the  other  points  embraced  in  the  New  Theology,  and  therefore 
I  cannot  state  with  ccriainiy  what  they  arc. 


THE   SUFFERINGS   OF    CHRIST.  93 

endured  the  penalty  of  the  law  in  the  room  of  his 
people.  ^'  Christ  hath  redeemed  us  from  the  curse 
of  the  law,  being  made  a  curse  for  us."  But  it  is,  in 
no  shape,  asserted  here,  that  Christ  suffered  the  pe- 
nalty of  the  law.  The  apostle  tells  us  in  what  sense 
he  was  "made  a  curse  for  us."  "Cursed  is  every 
one  that  hangeth  on  a  tree."  Believers  are  saved 
from  the  curse  or  penalty  of  the  law  by  the  consider- 
ation, that  Christ  was  "made  a  curse"  for  them  in 
another  and  a  very  different  sense.  He  was  "made  a 
curse"  inasmuch  as  he  suffered,  in  order  to  open  the 
door  of  hope  to  man,  the  pains  and  ignominy  of  cruci- 
fixion. He  hung  upon  a  tree.  He  died  as  a  malefac- 
tor. He  died  as  one  accursed."  In  a  note  on  the 
next  page,  with  reference  to  some  remarks  in  a  ser- 
mon by  Dr.  Dana,  of  Londonderry,  he  observes: 
"  But  why  is  it  necessary  to  support  the  position,  that 
the  curse  of  the  law  was  inflicted  on  Christ  ?  If  it 
should  be  said,  the  divine  veracity  was  pledged  to  ex- 
ecute the  law — we  reply  that  the  divine  veracity  can 
find  no  support  in  that  kind  of  infliction  of  the  curse 
which  is  here  supposed.  A  substantial  execution  of 
the  law — an  endurance  of  the  penalty  so  far  as  the 
nature  of  the  case  admitted  or  required — an  infliction 
of  suffering,  not  upon  the  transgressor,  but  upon  a 
surety,  when  the  law  had  not  made  the  most  distant 
allusion  to  a  surety,  certainly  has  much  more  the  ap- 
pearance of  evasion  than  execution  of  the  law."  He 
says,  (p.  51,)  "As  to  imputation,  we  do  deny  that  the 
sins  of  men,  or  of  any  part  of  our  race,  were  so  trans- 
ferred to  Christ,  that  they  became  his  sins,  or  were 


94  DR.  beman's  views. 

so  reckoned  to  him,  that  he  sustained  their  legal 
responsibilities."*  Again,  (p.  68,)  "There  is  no- 
thing in  the  character  of  Christ's  sufferings  which 
can  affect  or  modify  the  penalty  of  the  law.  These 
sufferings  were  not  legal.  They  constituted  no  part 
of  that  curse  which  was  threatened  against  the  trans- 
gressor." 

What  then,  according  to  him,  was  the  nature  of 
Christ's  sufferings?  He  says,  (p.  35,  36,)  "He  suf- 
fered and  died,  the  just  for  the  unjust;"  and  those 
sufferings  which  he  endured  as  a  holy  being,  were  in- 
tended, in  the  case  of  all  those  who  are  finally  saved, 
as  a  substitute  for  the  infliction  of  the  penalty  of  the 
law.  We  say  a  substitute  for  the  infliction  of  the 
fenalty ;  for  the  penalty  itself,  if  it  be  executed  at 
all,  must  fall  upon  the  sinner,  and  upon  no  one  else.'* 
Again,  (p.  50,  51,)  "  The  atonement  was  a  substitute 
for  the  infliction  of  the  penalty  of  the  law — or  the 
sufferings  of  Christ  were  a  substitute  for  the  punish- 
ment of  sinners This  is  vicarious  sujQfering. 

It  is  the  suffering  of  Christ  in  the  place  of  the  end- 
less suffering  of  the  sinner."  Once  more:  (p.  64,  ^^^ 
"  The  penalty  of  the  law,  strictly  speaking,  was  not 
inflicted  at  all ;  for  this  penalty,  in  which  was  [were] 
embodied  the  principles  of  distributive  justice,  re- 
quired the  death  of  the  sinner,  and  did  not  require 
the  death  of  Christ.    As  a  substitute  for  the  infliction 

*  The  Old  Theology  does  not  maintain  that  our  sins  "be- 
came his  sins" — but  only  that  he  sustained  our  legal  respon- 
sibilities. 


THE    SUrFERINGS   OF   CHRIST.  95 

of  this  penalty,  God  did  accept  of  the  sufferings  of 
his  Son." 

Was  there  then  no  satisfaction  made  to  divine  jus- 
tice? Says  Dr.  Beman,  (p.  65,)  "  The  law,  or  justice, 
that  is,  distributive  justice,  as  expressed  in  the  law, 
has  received  no  satisfaction  at  all.  The  whole  legal 
system  has  been  suspended,  at  least  for  the  present, 
in  order  to  make  way  for  the  operation  of  one  of  a 
different  character.  In  introducing  this  system  of 
mercy,  which  involves  a  suspension  of  the  penal  curse, 
God  has  required  a  satisfaction  to  the  principles  of 
general  or  public  justice — a  satisfaction  which  will 
effectually  secure  all  the  good  to  the  universe  which 
is  intended  to  be  accomplished  by  the  penalty  of  the 
law  when  inflicted,  and,  at  the  same  time,  prevent  all 
that  practical  mischief  which  would  result  from  arrest- 
ing the  hand  of  punitive  justice  without  the  interven- 
tion of  an  atonement."  But  what  does  he  mean  by 
'^ general  or  public  justice?''  He  says,  (p.  63,  64,) 
"  It  has  no  direct  reference  to  law,  but  embraces 
those  principles  of  virtue  or  benevolence  by  which  we 
are  bound  to  govern  our  conduct;  and  by  which  God 
himself  governs  the  universe.  It  is  in  this  sense  that 
the  terms  "just"  and  ''righteousness"  occur  in  our 
text.  [Rom.  iii.  26.]  ....  This  atonement  was  re- 
quired, that  God  might  be  "just,"  or  righteous,  that 
is,  that  he  might  do  the  thing  w^hich  was  fit  and  pro- 
per, and  best  and  most  expedient  to  be  done:  and  at 
the  same  time  be  at  perfect  liberty  to  justify  "  him 
which  believeth  in  Jesus." 

Let  me  now  inquire,  is  this  what  is  meant  in  the 


96  DR.  beman's  views. 

Confession  of  Faith,  where  it  reads,  "  The  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  by  his  perfect  obedience  and  sacrifice  of  him- 
self, which  he  through  the  Eternal  Spirit  once  ofi'ered 
up  unto  God,  hath  fully  satisfied  the  justice  of  his 
Father?''  We  think  not.  No  intimation  of  this 
kind  is  given.  The  framers  of  our  standards  do  not 
appear  to  have  learned  that  God  governs  the  universe 
by  one  kind  of  justice,  viz.  by  the  "  principles  of  vir- 
tue or  benevolence;"  and  punishes  sinners  for  rebel- 
ling against  his  government,  by  another  and  a  differ- 
ent kind,  viz.  the  justice  which  is  "  expressed  in  the 
law." 

Are  these  two  kinds  of  justice  in  conflict  with  each 
other?  or  is  not  God's  justice  "as  expressed  in  the 
law,"  the  same  kind  of  justice  by  which  he  "governs 
the  universe?"  Was  not  the  law  founded  on  the 
"principles  of  virtue  or  benevolence?"  Why  then 
could  not  Jehovah  exhibit  those  principles,  by  the 
obedience  and  sacrifice  of  Christ  in  our  behalf,  in 
conformity  to  the  law?  "But  when  the  fulness  of 
the  time  was  come,  God  sent  forth  his  Son,  made  of 
a  woman,  made  under  the  law,  to  redeem  them  that 
ivere  under  the  law,  that  we  might  receive  the  adop- 
tion of  sons."  Gal.  iv.  4,  5.  Does  this  mean  that 
those  "under  the  law,"  were  exposed  to  the  retribu- 
tion of  one  kind  of  justice,  and  that  Christ,  who  was 
"  made  under  the  law,  to  redeem  them,"  rendered 
satisfaction  to  another  and  a  different  kind — to  a  spe- 
cies of  justice  unknown  to  the  law,  and  contrary  to  it? 
Does  not  the  law  embody  those  things  which  "  are  fit 
and  proper,  and  best  and  most  expedient  to  be  done?" 


THE   SUFFERINGS   OF   CHRIST.  97 

If  SO,  why  was  it  necessary  to  "suspend"  it,  in  order 
to  introduce  a  code  of  justice,  which  ''has  no  direct 
reference  to  law,"  but  belongs  to  a  system  possessing 
*^a  dijfferent  character?" 

These  positions,  it  appears  to  me,  involve  the  sen- 
timent, that  the  divine  government  and  law,  as  the 
former  is  now  administered,  are  not  in  harmony  with 
each  other — that  the  government  of  God  could  not 
be  administered  according  to  the  "principles  of  vir- 
tue or  benevolence,"  in  a  manner  "fit  and  proper, 
and  most  and  best  expedient  to  be  done" — without  a 
suspension  of  "the  whole  legal  system;"  or,  which  is 
the  same  thing,  a  disregard  of  his  law.  And  if  the 
atonement  proceeded  on  this  principle,  we  cannot 
perceive  why  it  might  not  have  been  dispensed  with 
altogether — for  if  "the  penalty  of  the  law  was  not 
inflicted  at  all,"  but  a  system  was  introduced  "which 
involves  a  suspension  of  the  legal  curse,"  w^hy  might 
not  God  as  moral  Governor,  in  the  exercise  of  that 
"  virtue  or  benevolence,  by  which  he  governs  the  uni- 
verse," and  in  pursuance  of  what  "was  fit  and  pro- 
per, and  best  and  most  expedient  to  be  done,"  have 
suspended  "the  whole  legal  system,"  and  extended 
pardon  to  sinners  without  an  atonement? 

Dr.  Beman  assigns  three  reasons  why  the  atone- 
ment was  necessary;  all  of  which  lose  their  force  on 
the  supposition  that  Christ  did  not  suffer  the  penalty 
of  the  law.  He  says,  "the  atonement  was  necessary 
as  an  expression  of  God's  regard  for  the  moral 
law."  But  how  could  it  express  his  regard  for  the 
law,  provided  the  law  has  received  no  satisfaction 
9 


98  DR.  beman's  views. 

at  all,  ^'but  the  whole  legal  system  was  suspended  in 
order  to  make  way  for  the  operation  of  one,"  which 
"has  no  direct  reference  to  law?"  Again,  he  says, 
"the  atonement  was  necessary  in  order  to  evince  the 
divine  determination  to  punish  sin,  or  to  execute  the 
penalty  of  the  law."  On  the  principle  that  Christ 
acted  as  our  surety,  and  sustained  in  our  stead  those 
penal  evils  which  were  essential  to  the  execution  of 
the  threatening  contained  in  the  law,  we  can  perceive 
how  "the  divine  determination  to  punish  sin"  was 
evinced.  Not  so,  however,  if  we  "  deny  that  the  sins 
of  men  were  so  reckoned  to  Christ,  that  he  sustained 
their  legal  responsibilities;"  and  view  the  atonement 
as  "a  system  of  mercy,"  in  which  the  "sufferings  of 
Christ  were  not  legal,  and  constituted  no  part  of  that 
curse  which  was  threatened  against  the  transgressor." 
This  makes  the  atonenent  an  entire  departure  from 
law,  and  could  therefore  never  be  adduced  to  show 
that  God  has  determined  to  execute  its  penalty. 

The  other  reason  which  he  assigns  for  the  necessity 
of  the  atonement,  is  liable,  on  his  principles,  to  the 
same  objection.  "The  necessity  of  the  atonement, 
(says  he,)  will  further  appear,  if  we  contemplate 
the  relations  of  this  doctrine  with  the  rational  uni- 
verse."   "We  may  naturally  suppose,  that 

it  was  the  intention  of  God,  in  saving  sinners,  to 
make  a  grand  impression  upon  the  universe.".  .  .  . 
"  What  effect  would  the  salvation  of  sinners  without 
an  atonement,  probably  have  upon  the  angels  of 
heaven?"  ....  "This  example  has  taught  them  to 
revere  the  law,   and  to  expect  the  infliction  of  the 


THE   SUFFERINGS   OF   CHRIST.  99 

penalty  upon  every  transgressor." "Every 

angel  feels  the  impression  which  this  public  act  is 
calculated  to  make;  and  while  he  dreads,  with  a  new 
sensation,  the  penalty,  he  clings  more  closely  to  the 
precept  of  the  law.  But  suppose  the  provisions  of 
this  law  were  entirely  set  aside,  in  our  w^orld,  as 
would  be  the  case  if  sinful  men  were  to  be  saved 
without  an  atonement,  and,  in  the  estimation  of  fallen 
angels,  you  create  war  between  God  and  his  own 
eternal  law." 

Let  me  now  ask,  are  not  "the  provisions  of  the 
law  entirely  set  aside  in  our  world,"  according  to  his 
scheme?  Not,  it  is  true,  "by  saving  sinful  men 
without  an  atonement;"  but  by  saving  them  through 
that  kind  of  atonement,  which  "has  no  direct  refer- 
ence to  law,"  and  "involves  a  suspension  of  its  legal 
curse."  If  the  law  "has  no  concern  with  a  substi- 
tute;" and  if  Christ's  "sufiferings  constituted  no 
part  of  that  curse,  which  was  threatened  against  the 
transgressor;  how  can  a  vieiv  of  his  sufferings  teach 
the  angels  "to  revere  the  law,  and  to  expect  the 
infliction  of  the  penalty  upon  every  transgressor!" 
Would  it  not,  on  the  contrary,  produce  the  impression 
that  the  law  was  given  up;  and  its  "provisions 
entirely  set  aside  in  our  world?"  and  if  this  would 
be  the  impression  upon  holy  angels,  it  would  be  the 
same  upon  devils.  To  use  his  own  language,  "in  the 
estimation  of  fallen  angels,  you  create  war  between 
God  and  his  own  eternal  law."  On  the  principle 
that  Christ  suffered  the  penalty  of  the  law  as  our 
substitute,  all  is  plain — but  if  not,  neither  man  nor 


100  VIEWS   OP  MR.   JENKYN. 

angel  can  tell  satisfactorily,  how  ^'God  can  be  just 
while  he  justifies  him  that  believeth;  or  why,  if  he 
can  be  just  in  bestowing  pardon  ^vit^l  an  atonement, 
he  might  not  be  just  in  bestowing  it  ivithout  any. 

Another  work  on  the  atonement,  said  to  have  been 
founded  on  Dr.  Beman's  Sermons,  has  been  published 
in  England,  by  Mr.  Jenkyn,  and  republished  in  this 
country,  with  an  introductory  recommendation  by  Dr. 
Carroll.  On  these  two  accounts  it  may  be  properly 
referred  to  as  a  specimen  of  the  New  Views.*  Mr. 
Jenkyn  introduces  seven  arguments  to  prove-  that 
Christ  did  not  sufi'er  .  the  penalty  of  the  law — but 
that  his  sufferings  were  a  substitute  for  the  penalty. 
According  to  him,  the  very  idea  of  an  atonement, 
involves  a  suspension  of  the  penalty.  "An  atone- 
ment, (says  he,)  is  a  measure  or  an  expedient,  that  is 
a  satisfaction  for  the  suspension  of  the  threatened 
penalty.  A  suspension  or  a  non-execution  of  the 
literal   threatening  is  always  implied   in   an   atone- 

*  Concerning  Dr.  Beman's  Discourses,  Mr.  Jenkyn  says : — 
"  This  little  work  is  a  rich  nursery  of  what  Lord  Bacon  calls 
*the  seeds  of  things.'  It  abounds  in  living  theological  prin- 
ciples, each  of  which,  if  duly  cultivated  and  reared,  would 
unfold  great  and  ample  truths,  illustrative  of  this  great  doc- 
trine." Concerning  Jenkyn's  work.  Dr.  Carroll  uses  similar 
language: — "As  a  treatise,  (says  he,)  on  the  grand  relations  of 
the  atonement,  it  is  a  book  which  may  be  emphatically  said  to 
contain  'the  seeds  of  things' — the  elements  of  mightier  and 
nobler   combinations   of  thought  respecting  the   sacrifice   of 

Christ,  than  any  modern  production." "We  believe 

that  its  influence  on  the  opinions  of  theological  students  and 
ministers  will  be  great  and  salutary,  beyond  computation." 


THE   SUFFERINGS   OF   CHRIST.  101 

ment."   p.  25.      "If   a    man    transgress    a   law,    lie 
must,  in  a  just  and  firm  government,   be  punished. 
Why?     Lest  others  have  a  bad  opinion  of  the  law 
and  transgress  it  too.     But  suppose  that  this  end  of 
the  law  be  secured  without  punishing  the  transgres- 
sor ;  suppose  that  a  measure  shall  be  devised  by  the 
governor,  which  shall  save  the  criminal,  and  yet  keep 
men  from  having  a  bad  opinion  of  the  law.     Why,  in 
such  case,  all  would  approve  of  it,  both  on  the  score 
of  justice  and   on   the   score   of  benevolence.      For 
public  justice  only  requires  that  men  should  be  kept 
from  having   such   a  bad  opinion  of  the  law  as   to 
break  it.     If  this  can  be  done  without  inflicting  what, 
in   distributive  justice,   is  due  to  the  criminal,  pub- 
lic justice   is   satisfied,    because   its    ends    are   fully 
answered.     The   death   of  Christ  secures  this  end." 
p.  140,  1.     Again:  "The  truth  of  any  proposition  or 
declaration  consists  more  in  the  spirit  than  in  the 
letter  of  it.    Truth  in  a  2jro7ni8e  and  truth  in  a  threat- 
ening, are  different,  especially  in  measures  of  gov- 
ernment.    Truth  in  a  promise  obliges  the  promiser  to 
perform  his  word,  or  else  to  be  regarded  as  unfaithful 
and  false.     But  truth  in  a  threatening  does  not,  in 
the  administration  of  discipline  or  government,  actu- 
ally oblige  to  literal  execution;    it  only  makes  the 
punishment  to  be  due  and  admissible.     A  threatened 
penalty  does  not   deprive  the  lawgiver  of  his  sove- 
reign and  supra-legal  power  to  dispense  with  it,  if  he 
can  secure  the  ends  of  it  by  any  other  measure." 
"This   supra-legal    prerogative    of  sus- 
pending  punishment,    God   has    exercised    in   many 
9* 


102  VIEWS   OP   MR.   JENKYN. 

instances,  as  in  the  sparing  of  Nineveh,  and  I  believe 
in  the  sparing  of  our  first  parents.  The  identical 
penalty  of  the  Eden  constitution  was  not  literally 
executed  either  on  man  or  on  Christ.  It  was  not 
executed  on  mariy  for  then  there  would  have  been 
no  human  race.  The  first  pair  would  have  been 
destroyed,  and  mankind  would  never  have  come  into 
being.  It  was  not  executed  on  Christ.  He  did  no  sin ; 
he  violated  no  constitution,  and  yet  he  died.  Surely 
no  law  or  constitution  under  which  he  was,  could 
legally  visit  him  with  a  penalty.  If  it  be  said,  that 
he  suffered  it  for  others,  let  it  be  remembered  that 
immutable  verity  as  much  requires  that  the  penalty 
should  be  inflicted  on  the  literal  sinner  only,  as  that 
it  should  be  inflicted  at  all."  p.  64,  Qb. 

In  addition  to  the  remarks  already  made  on  Dr. 
Beman's  views,  which  will  answer  equally  well  for 
those  of  Mr.  Jenkyn,  we  wish  to  notice  a  sentiment 
not  before  alluded  to.  It  is  contained  in  the  last 
paragraph  quoted  from  Jenkyn,  and  is  as  follows, 
viz :  that  though  God  is  bound  to  fulfil  his  promises, 
he  is  not  bound  to  execute  his  threatenings.  This 
distinction  is  resorted  to  for  the  purpose  of  avoiding 
the  difiiculty,  that  if  God  does  not  inflict  the  penalty 
of  the  law  either  on  the  sinner  or  upon  Christ  as  his 
substitute,  his  veracity  is  thereby  impeached.  We 
admit  that  the  divine  veracity  does  not  require  the 
execution  of  a  conditional  threatening,  as  in  the  case 
of  Nineveh ;  but  no  one  will  pretend  that  God's  law 
threatened  punishment  for  disobedience  conditionally. 
The  moment  the  law  was  violated,  the  transgressor 


THE   SUFFERINGS   OF   CHRIST.  103 

fell  under  the  curse.  And  lie  must  either  endure  it 
eternally,  or  be  released  by  having  satisfaction  paid 
to  divine  justice  in  some  other  way.  "  Cursed  is 
every  one  that  continueth  not  in  all  things  written  in 
the  book  of  the  law,  to  do  them."  "In  the  day  thou 
eatest  thereof  thou  shalt  surely  die."  Accordingly, 
as  soon  as  Adam  transgressed  he  began  to  feel  the 
curse.  He  lost  God's  image"  and  favour — he  became 
spiritually  dead — and  he  would  have  suffered  tem- 
poral and  eternal  death,  had  they  not  been  averted 
by  the  interposition  of  a  substitute.*  The  penalty  of 
the  law  must  be  substantially  executed. 

"Die  he  or  justice  must,  unless  for  him, 
Some  other  able  and  as  willing,  pay 
The  rigid  satisfaction — death  for  death." 

If  God  is  not  bound  to  fulfil  his  threatenings,  how 
can  it  be  proved  that  the  punishment  of  the  wicked 
will  be  eternal?  Though  it  is  distinctly  and  fre- 
quently asserted  in  the  Bible  that  such  will  be  the 
doom  of  the  finally  impenitent,  yet  if  God's  veracity 
does  not  require  the  execution  of  this  threatening, 
there  is  no  certainty  that  it  will  be  inflicted :  nay, 
there  is  much  reason  to  believe  the  contrary ;  because 
if  there  is  nothing  in  God's  character,  or  law,  which 

^  It  is  sometimes  said  that  God  did  not  execute  his  threat- 
ening upon  Adam,  because  he  did  not  die  a  temporal  death 
that  very  day.  But  the  threatening  began  to  be  inflicted  that 
very  day — and  this  was  all  which  was  intended  by  it.  From 
the  nature  of  the  case,  eternal  death  cannot  be  inflicted  in  a 
day,  because  it  requires  an  endless  duration.  Even  in  the 
case  of  the  wicked  in  hell — it  has  only  begun  to  be  inflicted — 
and  yet  who  doubts  that  they  are  suffering  the  penalty  of  the 
law? 


104  ATONEMENT — NEW-SCHOOL  VIEWS. 

requires  him  to  punish  sin,  we  may  be  sure,  that  his 
infinite  goodness  will  lead  him  to  release  the  sinner 
from  condemnation ;  and  thus,  atonement  or  no  atone- 
ment, all  mankind  will  be  saved.     But  if  the  nature 
of  God  requires  him  to  punish  sin,  and  if  when  he 
has  threatened  to  punish  it,  his  veracity  requires  him 
to  execute  that  threatening;  then  either  Christ  en- 
dured what  was  essential  in  the  penalty  of  the  law  as 
our  substitute,  or   our  union  to  him  by  faith  cannot 
shelter  us  from  its  penal  demands.     Its  threatenings 
still  lie  against  us,  and  must  ere  long  be  inflicted.     It 
is  not  true,  therefore,  that  "there  is  no  condemnation 
to  them  that  are  in  Christ   Jesus."     He  is  not  "a 
hiding  place  from  the  wind;  a  covert  from  the  tem- 
pest." 

Mr.  Barnes,  in  his  sermon  on  the  Way  of  Salva- 
tion, and  in  his  Notes  on  the  Romans,  gives  substan- 
tially the  same  view  of  the  atonement  with  Dr.  Beman 
and  Mr.  Jenkyn.  But  in  another  production  of  his, 
viz:  an  Introductory  Essay  to  Butler's  Analogy, 
which  was  first  published  in  the  Christian  Spectator, 
and  afterwards  prefixed  to  a  new  edition  of  the  Ana- 
logy, he  presents  the  subject  in  a  manner  still  more 
exceptionable.  If  I  mistake  not,  it  is  such  a  view  as 
any  Unitarian  in  the  United  States  would  subscribe 
to.  His  language  is  as  follows:  "Now,  in  recurring 
to  the  analogy  of  nature,  we  have  only  to  ask, 
whether  calamities  which  are  hastening  to  fall  on  us, 
are  ever  put  back  by  the  intervention  of  another. 
Are  there  any  cases  in  which  either  our  own  crimes 
or   the   manifest   judgments   of   God,   are   bringing 


VIEWS   OP   MR.   BARNES.  105 

ruin  upon  us,  where  that  ruin  is  turned  aside  by 
the  interposition  of  others  ?  Now  we  at  once  cast  our 
eyes  backward  to  all  the  helpless  and  dangerous 
periods  of  our  being.  Did  God  come  forth  directly, 
and  protect  us  in  the  defenceless  period  of  infancy  ? 
Who  watched  over  the  sleep  of  the  cradle,  and  guard- 
ed us  in  sickness  and  helplessness?  It  was  the  ten- 
derness of  a  mother  bending  over  our  slumbering 
childhood,  foregoing  sleep,  and  rest,  and  ease,  and 
hailing  toil  and  care  that  we  might  be  defended. 
Why  then  is  it  strange,  that  when  God  thus  ushers  us 
into  existence  through  the  pain  and  toil  of  another, 
he  should  convey  the  blessings  of  a  higher  existence 
by  the  groans  and  pangs  of  a  higher  Mediator?  God 
gives  us  knowledge.  But  does  he  come  forth  to  teach 
us  by  inspiration,  or  guide  us  by  his  own  hand  to  the 
fountains  of  wisdom?  It  is  by  years  of  patient  toil 
in  others  that  we  possess  the  elements  of  science,  the 
principles  of  morals,  the  endowments  of  religion.  He 
gives  us  food  and  raiment.  Is  the  Great  Parent  of 
benevolence  seen  clothing  us  by  his  own  hand,  or 
ministering  directly  to  our  wants?  Who  makes  pro- 
vision for  the  sons  and  daughters  of  feebleness, 
gaiety,  or  idleness?  Who  but  the  care-worn  and 
anxious  father  and  mother,  who  toil  that  their  off- 
spring may  receive  these  benefits  from  their  hands  ? 
Why  then  may  not  the  garments  of  salvation  and  the 
manna  of  life  come  through  a  higher  Mediator,  and 
be  the  fruit  of  severer  toil  and  sufferings  ?  Heaven's 
highest,  richest  benefits  are  thus  conveyed  to  the  race 
through  thousands  of  hands  acting  as  mediums  be- 


106  ATONEMENT — NEW-SCHOOL  VIEWS. 

tween  man  and  God.  It  is  thus  through  the  instru- 
mentality of  others,  that  the  great  Giver  of  life 
breathes  health  into  our  bodies,  and  vigour  into  our 
frames.  And  "why  should  he  not  reach  also  the  sick 
and  weary  mind — the  soul  languishing  under  a  long 
and  wretched  disease,  by  the  hand  of  a  Mediator? 
Why  should  he  not  kindle  the  glow  of  spiritual  health 
on  the  wan  cheek,  and  infuse  celestial  life  into  our 
veins,  by  him  who  is  the  great  Physician  of  our  souls  ? 
The  very  earth,  air,  waters,  are  all  channels  for  con- 
veying blessings  to  us  from  God.  Why  then  should 
the  infidel  stand  back,  and  all  sinners  frown,  when  we 
claim  the  same  thing  in  redemption,  and  affirm  that 
in  this  great  concern,  Hhere  is  one  Mediator  between 
God  and  men,  the  man  Christ  Jesus,  who  gave  him- 
self a  ransom  for  all?' 

"But  still  it  may  be  said,  that  this  is  not  an  atone- 
ment. We  admit  it.  We  maintain  only  that  it  vin- 
dicates the  main  principle  of  atonement,  and  shows 
that  it  is  according  to  a  general  law,  that  God  imparts 
spiritual  blessings  to  us  through  a  Mediator.  What, 
we  ask,  is  the  precise  objectionable  point  in  the  atone- 
ment, if  it  be  not  that  God  aids  us  in  our  sins  and 
woes,  by  the  self-denial  and  sufferings  of  another? 
And  we  ask,  whether  there  is  any  thing  so  peculiar 
in  such  a  system,  as  to  make  it  intrinsically  absurd 
and  incredible?  Now  we  think  there  is  nothing  more 
universal  and  indisputable  than  a  system  of  nature 
like  this.  God  has  made  the  whole  animal  world 
tributary  to  man.  And  it  is  by  the  toil  and  pain  of 
creation,  that  our  wants  are  supplied,  our  appetites 


QUOTATIONS  FROM  MR.  BARNES.        107 

gratified,  our  bodies  sustained,  our  sickness  alleviated 
— that  is,  the  impending  evils  of  labour,  famine,  or 
disease,  are  put  away  by  these  substituted  toils  and 
privations.  By  the  blood  of  patriots  he  gives  us  the 
blessings  of  liberty — that  is,  by  their  sufferings  in  our 
defence  we  are  delivered  from  the  miseries  of  rapine, 
murder,  or  slavery,  which  might  have  encompassed 
our  dwellings.  The  toil  of  a  father  is  the  price  by 
which  a  son  is  saved  from  ignorance,  depravity,  want, 
or  death.  The  tears  of  a  mother,  and  her  long 
watchfulness,  save  from  the  perils  of  infancy,  and 
an  early  death.  Friend  aids  friend  by  toil ;  a  parent 
foregoes  rest  for  a  child ;  and  the  patriot  pours  out 
his  blood  on  the  altars  of  freedom,  that  others  may 
enjoy  the  blessings  of  liberty — that  is,  that  others 
may  not  be  doomed  to  slavery,  want,  and  death. 

"  Yet  still  it  may  be  said,  that  we  have  not  come, 
in  the  analogy,  to  the  precise  point  of  the  atonement, 
in  producing  reconciliation  with  God  by  the  sufferings 
of  another.  We  ask  then,  what  is  the  Scripture  ac- 
count of  the  effect  of  the  atonement  in  producing  re- 
conciliation? Man  is  justly  exposed  to  suffering. 
He  is  guilty,  and  it  is  the  righteous  purpose  of  God 
that  the  guilty  should  suffer.  God  is  so  opposed  to 
him  that  he  will  inflict  suffering  on  him,  unless  by 
an  atonement  it  is  prevented.  By  the  intervention  of 
an  atonement,  therefore,  the  Scriptures  affirm  that 
such  sufferings  shall  be  averted.  The  man  shall  be 
saved  from  the  impending  calamity.  Sufficient  for 
all  the  purposes  of  justice  and  of  just  government, 
has  fallen  on  the  substitute,  and  the  sinner  may  be 


108  ATONEMENT — NE-W-SCHOOL  VIEWS. 

pardoned  and  reconciled  to  God.  Now,  we  affirm 
that  in  every  instance  of  the  substituted  sufferings,  or 
self-denial  of  the  parent,  the  patriot,  or  the  benefac- 
tor, there  occurs  a  state  of  things  so  analogous  to 
this,  as  to  show  that  it  is  in  strict  accordance  with 
the  just  government  of  God,  and  to  remove  all  the 
objections  to  the  peculiarity  of  the  atonement.  Over 
a  helpless  babe  ushered  into  the  world,  naked,  feeble, 
speechless,  there  impend  hunger,  cold,  sickness,  sud- 
den death — a  mother's  watchfulness  averts  these  evils. 
Over  a  nation  impend  revolutions,  sword,  famine,  and 
the  pestilence.  The  blood  of  the  patriot  averts  these, 
and  the  nation  smiles  in  peace.  Look  at  a  single  in- 
stance: Xerxes  poured  his  millions  on  the  shores  of 
Greece.  The  vast  host  darkened  all  the  plains,  and 
stretched  towards  the  capital.  In  the  train  there 
followed  weeping,  blood,  conflagration,  and  the  loss 
of  liberty.  Leonidas,  almost  alone,  stood  in  his  path. 
He  fought.  Who  can  calculate  the  effects  of  the 
valour  and  blood  of  that  single  man  and  his  compa- 
triots in  averting  calamities  from  Greece,  and  from 
other  nations  struggling  in  the  cause  of  freedom? 
Who  can  tell  how  much  of  rapine,  of  cruelty,  and  of 
groans  and  tears  it  turned  away  from  that  nation?" 

It  is  due  to  Mr.  Barnes  to  state,  that  he  observes 
in  the  words  immediately  following  the  above  extract, 
"Now  we  bv  no  means  affirm  that  this  is  all  that  is 
meant  by  an  atonement,  as  revealed  by  Christianity." 
Yet  in  his  subsequent  remarks  he  does  not  advance  a 
single  idea  which  gives  a  higher  view  of  that  great 
transaction,  than  is  presented  above :  and  in  the  pass- 


QUOTATIONS  FROM  MR.  BARNES.        109 

age  "vve  have  quoted,  he  affirms  that  the  view  which 
he  has  given,  "vindicates  the  main  principle  of  atone- 
ment." If  his  illustrations  vindicate  the  main  prin- 
ciple of  atonement,  they  must  convey  a  correct  idea 
of  what  the  atonement  is.  But  if  the  reader  is  left 
to  obtain  his  knowledge  on  this  subject  from  these 
statements,  he  would  adopt  a  scheme  unworthy  the 
name  of  atonement.  Indeed,  Mr.  Barnes  admits, 
with  reference  to  the  first  part  of  his  statement,  that 
it  is  not  an  atonement ;  though  at  the  same  time  he 
asserts  that  the  "main  principle  of  atonement"  is  vin- 
dicated by  the  view  which  he  had  presented.  But  if 
the  ''main  principtle"  of  atonement  is  exhibited  in 
any  part  of  the  above  extract,  or  in  the  whole 
taken  together,  we  can  see  no  reason  for  the  neces- 
sity of  a  divine  Mediator ;  and  should  be  disposed 
seriously  to  inquire  whether  Socinianism  is  not  all 
the  Christianity  that  we  need?* 

^'  The  Christian  Examiner,  a  Unitarian  periodical,  published 
at  Boston,  contains  a  review  of  Mr.  Barnes's  Notes  on  the 
Romans,  in  which  the  writer  observes,  "On  the  atonement, 
our  author's  views  are  far  in  advance  of  those  of  the  church  to 
which  he  belongs.  Though  he  maintains  that  Christ  was  in 
some  sense  a  substitute  in  the  place  of  sinners,  he  denies  a 
strictly  and  fully  vicarious  atonement,  and  makes  the  Saviour's 
death  important  chiefly  as  an  illustration  of  the  inherent  and 
essential  connection  between  sin  and  sufiering."  With 
regard  to  the  book,  the  reviewer  says,  "While,  for  the  most 
part,  we  would  advise  no  additions,  were  the  work  re-edited 
under  Unitarian  supervision,  we  should  note  exceedingly  few 
omissions.  Indeed,  on  many  of  the  standard  and  Trinitarian 
proof-texts,  Mr.  Barnes  has  candidly  indicated  the  inadequacy 
of  the  text  to  prove  the  doctrine."     ....    "Sometimes  Mr. 

10 


110  ATONEMENT — NEW-SCHOOL   VIEWS. 

We  shall  give  but  one  more  specimen  of  tlie  New 
Theology  on  this  subject.  It  will  be  taken  from  a 
sermon  of  Dr.  Murdock,  preached  before  the  students 
at  Andover  in  1823.  He  was  at  that  time  a  profes- 
sor in  the  Andover  Theological  Seminary. 

"In  this  text  [Rom.  iii.  25,  26,]  Paul  declares 
explicitly,  what  was  the  immediate  object  of  Christ's 
atoning  sacrifice;  that  is,  what  effect  it  had  in  the 
economy  of  redemption,  or  how  it  laid  a  proper  foun- 
dation for  the  pardon  and  the  salvation  of  sinful  men. 
It  was  the  immediate  object  of  this  sacrifice  to  declare 
the  righteousness  of  God:  in  other  words,  to  display 
and  vindicate  the  perfect  holiness  and  uprightness  of 
his  character  as  a  moral  Governor.  This  display 
being  made,  he  can  with  propriety  forgive  all  that 
believe  in  Christ  Jesus."  ....  "To  enable  God 
righteously  to  pardon  the  repenting  sinner,  the 
atonement  must  give  the  same  support  to  law,  or 
must  display  as  impressively  the  perfect  holiness  and 
justice  of  God,  as  the  execution  of  the  law  on  trans- 
gressors would.  It  must  be  something  different  from 
the  execution  of  the  law  itself;  because  it  is  to  be  a 
substitute  for  it,  something  which  renders  it  safe  and 
proper  to  suspend  the  regular  course  of  distributive 
justice."  ....  "Now  such  an  expedient,  the  text 
represents  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  to  be.  It  is  a  de- 
claration of  the  righteousness  of  God ;  so  that  he 
might  be  just" — might  secure  the  objects  of  distribu- 

Barnes  does  not  so  much  as  suggest  a  Trinitarian  idea  in  com- 
menting on  texts  which  have  been  deemed  decidedly  and  irre- 
sistibly Trinitarian  in  their  bearing.'' 


QUOTATIONS   FROM    DR.    MURDOCK.  Ill 

tlve  justice,  as  it  becomes  a  righteous  moral  governor 
to  do — ^and  yet  might  justify,'  or  acquit  and  ex- 
empt from  punishment  him  that  believeth  in  Jesus. 
It  was  in  the  nature  of  it,  an  exhibition  or  proof  of 
the  righteousness  of  God.  It  did  not  consist  in  the 
execution  of  the  law  on  any  being  whatever ;  for  it 
was  a  substitute  for  the  execution  of  it."  ....  "Its 
immediate  influence  was  not  on  the  character  and 
relations  of  man  as  transgressors,  nor  on  the  claims 
of  the  law  upon  them.  Its  direct  operation  was  on 
the  feelings  and  apprehensions  of  the  beings  at  large, 
who  are  under  the  moral  government  of  God.  In 
two  respects  it  coincided  precisely  with  a  public  exe- 
cution of  the  law  itself:  its  immediate  influence  was 
on  the  same  persons;  and  that  influence  was  pro- 
duced in  the  same  way — by  means  of  a  public  exhibi- 
tion." .  .  .  "  The  only  difficulty  is  to  understand 
how  this  exhibition  was  a  display  of  the  righteous- 
ness of  God.  To  solve  it,  some  have  resorted  to  the 
supposition  that  the  Son  of  God  became  our  sponsor, 
and  satisfied  the  demands  of  the  law  by  suff"ering  in 
our  stead.  But  to  this  hypothesis  there  are  strong 
objections.  To  suppose  that  Christ  was  really  and 
truly  our  sponsor,  and  that  he  sufi'ered  in  this  char- 
acter, would  involve  such  a  transfer  of  legal  obliga- 
tions and  liabilities  and  merits,  as  is  inadmissible; 
and  to  suppose  any  thing  short  of  this,  will  not 
explain  the  difficulty.  For  if,  while  we  call  him  a 
sponsor,  we  deny  that  he  was  legally  holden  or 
responsible  for  us,  and  liable  in  equity  to  sufi*er  in 
our  stead,  we  assign  no  intelligible  reason  why  his 


112  ATONEMENT — OLD   THEOLOGY. 

sufferings  should  avail  any  thing  for  our  benefit,  or 
display  at  all  the  righteousness  of  God."  .  .  .  "We 
must,  therefore,  resort  to  some  other  solution.  And 
what  is  more  simple,  and  at  the  same  time  satisfac- 
tory, than  that  which  is  suggested  by  the  text  ?  The 
atonement  was  an  exhibition  or  display;  that  is,  it 
was  a  symholical  transaction.  It  was  a  transaction 
in  which  God  and  his  Son  were  the  actors ;  and  they 
acted  in  perfect  harmony,  though  performing  differ- 
ent parts  in  the  august  drama."  ....  *'The  object 
of  both,  in  this  affecting  tragedy,  was  to  make  an 
impression  on  the  minds  of  rational  beings  every 
where  and  to  the  end  of  time.  And  the  impression 
to  be  made  was,  that  God  is  a  holy  and  righteous 
God ;  that  while  inclined  to  mercy  he  cannot  forget 
the  demands  of  justice  and  the  danger  to  his  kingdom 
from  the  pardon  of  the  guilty;  that  he  must  show  his 
feelings  on  this  subject;  and  show  them  so  clearly 
and  fully  that  all  his  rational  creatures  shall  feel  that 
he  honours  his  law  while  suspending  its  operation,  as 
much  as  he  would  by  the  execution  of  it.  But  how, 
it  may  be  asked,  are  these  things  expressed  or  repre- 
sented by  this  transaction  ?  The  answer  is — symbol- 
ically. The  Son  of  God  came  down  to  our  world  to 
do  and  suffer  what  he  did ;  not  merely  for  the  sake 
of  doing  those  acts  and  enduring  those  sorrows,  but 
for  the  sake  of  the  impression  to  be  made  on  the 
minds  of  all  beholders,  by  his  labouring  and  suffering 
in  this  manner." 

The  principal  difference  between  these  views  and 
those  of  Dr.  Beman  and  others  of  the  same  school, 


QUOTATIONS   FROM   DR.    DANA.  11 


f> 


is  tliat  lie  has  laid  aside  the  usual  orthodox  terms, 
and  expressed  his  sentiments  in  other  language. 
Perhaps  this  was  one  reason  why  such  a  sensation 
was  produced  in  the  community  hj  the  appearance 
of  the  sermon.  Professor  Stuart  published  two  dis- 
courses, (if  I  remember  correctly,)  with  a  view  to 
counteract  its  influence;  and  Dr.  Dana,  of  London- 
derry, preached  a  sermon  (probably  for  the  same 
end,)  before  the  Convention  of  Congregational  and 
Presbyterian  Ministers  of  New-Hampshire;  which 
was  published  by  their  request.  From  this  sermon 
we  shall  give  some  extracts  as  expressive  of  the  Old 
Theology  on  this  subject.  His  text  is  in  Isa.  liii.  4, 
5,  6  ;  concerning  which  he  observes : 

"Jehovah,  the  just,  the  benevolent  Jehovah,  I's 
pleased  to  bruise  him  and  to  put  him  to  grief.  Un- 
paralleled mystery!  How  shall  it  be  explained? 
One  fact,  and  that  alone  explains  it.  He  suffered  as 
a  substitute.  He  suffered  not  for  himself,  but  for 
those  whom  he  came  to  save.  This  the  prophet 
unequivocally  declares  in  the  text;  and  declares  in 
such  variety  and  accumulation  of  language,  as  is 
calculated  to  make  the  very  strongest  impression 
on  the  mind."  ...  "A  moment's  reflection  may 
convince  us  that  if  any  of  our  sinful  race  are  to 
be  pardoned  and  saved,  an  atonement  is  absolutely 
necessary,  God  is  holy  and  just;  infinitely  and 
immutably  holy  and  just.  These  attributes  imply 
that  he  has  a  perfect  and  irreconcilable  aversion  to 
all  sin ;  and  must  manifest  this  aversion  to  his  crea- 
tures. But  how  can  this  be  done  if  sin  be  pardoned 
10* 


114  ATONEMENT — OLD   THEOLOGY. 

without  an  atonement?    Would  not  the  great  Jehovah 
in  this  case,  practically  deny  himself?    Would  not  the 
lustre  of  his  glorious  attributes  be  awfully  eclipsed 
and  tarnished?     Further,   as  the   Sovereign  of  the 
universe,   God  has  given  his  intelligent  creatures  a 
law.     This  law,  while  it  requires  perfect  obedience, 
must  likewise  be   enforced  by  penalties.     Nor  is  it 
enough   that  these  penalties  be   merely   denounced. 
They  must  be  executed  on  those  who  incur  them  by 
transgression;  or  on  a  surety.     Otherwise,  where  is 
the  truth  of  the  Lawgiver?     Where  is  the  stability 
of  the  law?     Where  is  the  dignity  of  government?" 
.  .  .  .  "  Still  further,  it  is  easy  to  see  that  satisfac- 
tion, if  made  by  a  surety,  must  correspond  with  the 
debt  due  from  those  in  whose  behalf  it  is  rendered. 
Mankind  universally  owe  to  their  heavenly  Sovereign, 
a   debt    of   perfect,    undeviating   obedience."  .  .  .  . 
''We  have  likewise  contracted  a  debt  of  punishment. 
This  results  from  the  penal  sanction  of  the  law,  and 
is  proportionate  to  the  evil  of  sin.     It  corresponds 
with  the  majesty  and  glory  of  the  Lawgiver,  and  with 
our  own  obligations  to  obedience.     Now  if  a  surety 
undertake  for  us,  he  must  pay  our  debt  in  both  these 
regards."  ....  "As  to  his  sufferings,  we  contend 
not  that  the  Hedeemer  endured  precisely  the  same 
misery,  in  kind  or  degree,  to  which  the  sinner  was 
exposed,  and  which  he  must  otherwise  have  endured. 
This   was   neither   necessary   nor   possible.     Infinite 
purity  could  not  know  the  tortures  of  remorse.     In- 
finite excellence  could  not  feel  the  anojuish  of  malio;- 
nant  passions.     Nor  was  it  needful  that  the  Saviour, 


a 


QUOTATIONS   FROM   DR.    DANA.  115 

in  making  atonement  for  human  guilt,  should  sustain 
sufferings  without  end.  Such,  it  is  admitted,  must 
have  been  the  punishment  of  the  sinner,  had  he  borne 
it  in  his  own  person.  But  this  necessity  results,  not 
directly  from  the  penal  sanction  of  the  law,  but  from 
the  impossibility  that  a  finite  transgressor  should, 
within  any  limited  period,  render  satisfaction  for 
his  sins.  But  the  infinite  dignity  of  the  Saviour 
imparted  an  infinite  value  and  efficacy  to  his  tem- 
porary sufferings.  Indeed  it  cannot  be  doubted  that 
he  endured  as  much  of  that  same  misery  to  which  the 
sinner  stands  exposed,  as  consisted  with  the  perfect 
innocence,  dignity,  and  glory  of  his  character.  He 
suffered  not  only  the  united  assaults  of  human  cruelty 
and  infernal  rage,  but  the  far  more  torturing  pains  of 
divine  dereliction.  And  inasmuch  as  the  Scripture 
expressly  declares  that  in  redeeming  us  from  the 
law  he  was  made  a  curse  for  us,  we  are  constrained 
to  conclude  that  his  sufferings  were  a  substantial 
execution  of  the  threatening  of  the  law;  a  real  en- 
durance of  its  penalty,  so  far  as  the  nature  of  the 
case  admitted  or  required. 

With  reference  to  Dr.  Murdock's*  views.  Dr.  Dana 
observes:  "In  the  first  place,  it  tends,  apparently  at 
least,  to  subvert  the  law.  It  declares  that  'the 
atonement  is  something  different  from  the  execution 
of  the  law,  and  a  substitute  for  it;'  that  'it  did  not 
fulfil  the  law,  or  satisfy  its  demands  on  transgres- 
sors.'    In  accordance  with  these   views,   it   declares 

■^  Dr.  Murdock  is  not  mentioned  by  name. 


116  ATONEMENT — OLD   THEOLOGY. 

tliat  *  tlie  justification  of  believers  is  not  founded  on 
the  principles  of  law  and  distributive  justice;'  and 
further,  that  it  is  a  real  departure  from  the  regular 
course  of  justice;  and  such  a  departure  from  it,  as 
leaves  the  claims  of  the  law  on  the  persons  justified 
for  ever  unsatisfied.  Without  commenting  at  large 
on  these  suggestions  so  peculiar,  and  so  grating  (as  I 
apprehend)  to  the  ears  and  hearts  of  most  Christians, 
I  will  simply  set  before  you  the  Saviour's  own  inten- 
tions, in  his  advent  and  mediation;  and  these  as  de- 
clared in  his  own  words:  *  Think  not  (says  he)  that  I 
am  come  to  destroy  the  law  or  the  prophets.  I  am 
not  come  to  destroy,  but  to  fulfil.  For  verily  I  say 
unto  yoUj  till  heaven  and  earth  pass,  one  jot  or  one 
tittle  shall  in  no  wise  pass  from  the  law  till  all  be 
fulfilled.'  Surely  then  his  atonement  was  not  'a, 
substitute  for  the  execution  of  the  law.'  On  the  con- 
trary, his  obedience  and  sufferings  were  a  substantial 
fulfilment  of  its  precept  and  its  penalty ;  and  were 
designed  to  procure  the  justification  and  salvation 
of  men,  not  through  a  'departure  from  the  regular 
course  of  justice;'  not  by  'leaving  the  claims  of  the 
law  for  ever  unsatisfied;'  but  in  perfect  accordance 
with  the  immutable  and  everlasting  principles  both  of 
law  and  justice."  .... 

2.  "This  scheme  gives  us  such  views  of  the  divine 
character,  as  are  equally  inexplicable  and  distress- 
ing." ....  "A  Being  of  spotless  innocence,  and 
divine  dignity;  a  Being  adored  by  angels  and  dear 
to  God;  a  Being,  in  short,  the  most  lovely  and  glori- 
ous that  the  intelligent  creation  ever  saw,  is  subjected 


QUOTATIONS   FROM   DR.    DANA.  117 

to  sufferings  more  complicated  and  severe  than  were 
ever  before  endured  in  our  world ;  and  all  this  not  by 
way  of  substitution;  not  by  way  of  satisfaction  for 
the  sifis  of  others;  but  of  exhibition  or  display  !'^ 

3.  *'It  is  a  serious  question  whether  the  theory  in 
view  does  not  comprise  a  virtual  denial  of  the  atone- 
ment itself.  It  leaves  us  the  name  ;  but  what  does  it 
leave  of  the  reality?  An  exhibition  is  not  an  atone- 
ment. A  display  is  not  an  atonement.  A  mere 
symbolical  transaction  is  not  an  atonement."  .  .  . 

"Where,  then,  let  it  be  asked  in  the  fourth  place, 
is  the  foundation  of  the  believer's  hope  ?  It  is  a  no- 
torious fact,  that  the  great  body  of  Christians  in 
every  age  have  embraced  the  doctrine  of  the  vica- 
rious sufferings  and  obedience  of  their  Saviour. 
Pressed  with  a  sense  of  guilt,  they  have  taken  refuge 
in  his  atoning  blood.  Conscious  of  the  imperfection 
of  their  best  obedience,  they  have  trusted  in  his  right- 
eousness alone.  United  to  their  Redeemer  by  living 
faith,  they  have  assured  themselves  of  a  personal 
interest  in  his  atonement  and  righteousness.  And 
they  have  exulted  in  the  thought  that  this  method  of 
salvation  met  all  the  demands,  and  secured  all  the 
honours,  of  the  divine  law  and  justice.  Shall  Chris- 
tians now  be  told  that  this  is  mere  dream  and  delu- 
sion; that  no  proper  satisfaction  for  their  sins  has 
ever  been  made;  that  their  justification  is  nothing 
but  an  absolute  pardon;  and  that  even  this  is  a  'de- 
parture from  the  regular  course  of  justice?'  Doctrine 
like  this  is  calculated  to  appal  the  believer's  heart, 
and  plant  thorns  in  his  dying  pillow.     It  is  even  cal- 


118  ATONEMENT OLD   THEOLOGY. 

culated  to  send  a  pang  to  the  bosoms  of  the  blest; 
to  silence  those  anthems  of  praise  which  the  redeemed 
on  high  are  offering  '  to*  Him  that  loved  them  and 
washed  them  from  their  sins  in  his  own  blood.'  " 

The  Old-school  Presbyterian  views  are  likewise 
expressed  in  the  following  language  of  Dr.  Alexan- 
der: "The  penalty  of  a  holy,  violated  law,  was  the 
only  thing  which  stood  in  the  way.  Mere  sufferings 
of  any  one  are  of  no  value,  except  in  relation  to  some 
end.  The  sufferings  of  Christ  could  no  otherwise 
open  a  way  of  pardon  but  by  removing  the  penalty 
of  the  law;  but  they  could  have  no  tendency  to  re- 
move the  penalty  but  by  his  enduring  it.  Sufferings 
not  required  by  law  and  justice  must  have  been  unjust 
sufferings,  and  never  could  effect  any  good.  Such 
exhibition  could  not  have  the  effect  of  demonstrating 
God's  hatred  of  sin,  for  it  was  not  the  punishment  of 
sin;  nor  could  it  make  the  impression  on  the  world, 
that  the  Ruler  of  the  universe  would  hereafter  punish 
sin;  for,  according  to  this  theory,  sin  goes  unpun- 
ished, and  dreadful  sufferings  are  inflicted  on  the 
innocent,  to  whom  no  sin  is  imputed.  This  scheme  as 
really  subverts  the  true  doctrine  of  atonement,  as 
that  of  Socinus;  and  no  reason  appears  why  it  was 
necessary  that  the  person  making  this  exhibition 
should  be  a  divine  person." — Treatise  on  Justifica- 
tion. 

The  whole  controversy  concerning  the  nature  of 
the  atonement,  may  be  resolved  into  two  questions: 
1.  Is  God  bound  to  punish  sin?  and  2.  Does  this 
necessity  arise  from  the  nature  of  God,  or  from  cir- 


REMARKS   OP   DR.    SYMINGTON.  119 

cumstances  which  lie  without  him?  In  other  words, 
do  his  holiness  and  justice  require  him  to  manifest  his 
abhorrence  to  sin  by  inflicting  upon  it  deserved  pun- 
ishment? or  does  the  necessity  for  manifesting  this 
abhorrence  lie  only  in  "reasons  of  state,"  as  civilians 
say — i.  e.  in  the  necessity  of  making  a  salutary  im- 
pression upon  his  moral  government? 

That  the  veracity  of  God  requires  him  to  execute 
the  threatenings  of  his  law,  we  have  already  shown. 
But  why  do  we  find  such  a  law  in  existence  ? — a  law 
binding   him   to    punish    sin?      "The    opposition    of 
God's    laiv   to  sin,"   says    Symington,    is   "just  the 
opposition  of  his  nature  to  sin;  his  nature,  not  his 
will,  is  the  ultimate  standard  of  morality.     His  deter- 
mination to  punish  sin  is  not  voluntary^  but  necessary. 
He  does  not  annex  a  punishment  to  sin  because  he  • 
wills  to  do  so,  but  because  his  nature  requires  it.     If 
the  whole  of  such  procedure  could  be  resolved  into 
mere  volition,  then  it  is  not  only  supposable  that  God 
might  not  have  determined  to  punish  sin,  but,  which 
is  blasphemous,  that  he  might  have   determined  to 
reward  it.     This  is  not  more  clearly  deducible  from 
the  nature   of  a  being  of  perfect  moral  excellence, 
than  plainly  taught  in   Scripture:  '^ He  will  hy  no 
means  clear  the  guilty.     The  Lord  is  a  jealous  God, 
he  will  not  forgive  your  transgressions  nor  your  sins. 
Thou  art  not  a  God  that  hath  j^leasure  in  wickedness, 
neither  shall  evil  dwell  with  thee.     God  is  angry  with 
the  wicked  every  day.     The  Lord  luill  tahe  vengeance 
on  his  adversaries,   and  he  reserveth  lurath  for  his 
enemies.    Who  can  stand  before  his  indignation  ?  and 


120  ATONEMENT — OLD   THEOLOGY. 

wJio  can  abide  in  the  fierceness  of  Jiis  anger?  Is  God 
unrighteous  who  taketh  vengeance?  Our  God  is  a 
consuming  fire."  (Excel,  xxiv.  7;  Josh.  xxiv.  19; 
Ps.  V.  4;  vi.  11;  Neh.  i.  2,  6;  Rom.  iii.  5;  Heb.  xii. 
29.)  We  may  confidently  appeal  to  every  unpreju- 
diced mind  whether  such  descriptions  as  these  do  not 
fully  bear  us  out  in  the  view  we  have  taken  of  God's 
retributive  justice.  And  if  this  view  is  correct,  sin 
cannot  go  unpunished ;  it  cannot  be  pardoned  without 
a  satisfaction;  God  cannot  but  take  vengeance  on 
iniquity;  to  do  otherwise  would  be  to  violate  the 
perfection  of  his  nature.  Just  he  is,  and  just  he 
ever  must  be ;  and  there  is  only  one  way,  that  of  an 
atoning  sacrifice,  by  which  he  can  be  at  once  a  JUST 
God  and  a  Saviour." — Symington  on  the  Atonement. 
If  the  only  reason  why  God  is  bound  to  punish  sin 
arises  from  the  efi'ect  to  be  produced  upon  the  uni- 
verse, then  if  he  had  created  no  other  intelligent 
beings  except  man,  no  atonement  would  have  been 
necessary — because  no  moral  beings  would  exist,  upon 
whom  to  make  this  impression — and  of  course  he 
might  have  forgiven  us,  irrespective  of  an  atonement, 
without  doing  any  injury  to  his  government.  But,  if 
the  necessity  of  punishing  sin  lies  primarily  in  his 
nature^  an  atonement  would  be  as  necessary  for 
the  redemption  of  a  single  sinner,  if  he  had  been 
the  only  being  in  the  universe,  as  it  was  under  the 
circumstances  in  which  this  scheme  of  mercy  was 
devised.  And  this  we  believe  to  be  the  fact.  Other- 
wise God  does  not  possess  essentially^  that  holiness, 
which  the  Scriptures  represent  as  constituting  the 
glory  of  his  character. 


VIEWS    OF   DR.    BELLAMY.  121 

If  then  the  question  be  asked,  Why  is  God  bound 
to  punish  sin?  the  first  answer  is,  because  it  is  right 
— sin  being  opposite  to  his  nature — and  his  nature 
therefore  requires  him  to  manifest  towards  it  his 
abhorrence.  Is  the  question  repeated?  We  reply, 
it  is  from  a  regard  to  his  laiv  and  government. 
Though  the  former  is  the  'primary  reason,  the  latter 
is  of  great  importance,  and  must  never  be  forgotten. 
Taken  together  they  show  not  only  the  necessity  of 
an  atonement  in  order  to  the  pardon  of  sin,  but  that 
the  atonement  must  consist  in  a  substantial  endurance 
of  the  penalty  of  the  law.  On  any  other  principle, 
sin  goes  unpunished ;  and  we  are  driven  to  the  con- 
clusion before  adverted  to,  that  God  is  not  "glorious 
in  holiness'' — "a  just  God,"  who  "will  by  no  means 
clear  the  guilty." 

The  following  extract  from  Dr.  Bellamy  will  show 
how  nearly  the  above  views  correspond  with  the  sen- 
timents prevalent  in  New  England  a  hundred  years 
ago:  "It  was  fit,  if  any  intelligent  creature  should  at 
any  time  swerve  at  all  from  the  perfect  will  of  God, 
that  he  should  for  ever  lose  his  favour  and  fall  under 
his  everlasting  displeasure,  for  a  thing  so  infinitely 
wrong:  and  in  such  a  case  it  was  fit  the  Governor  of 
the  world  should  be  infinitely  displeased  and  publicly 
testify  his  infinite  displeasure  by  a  punishment  ade- 
quate thereto,  inflicted  on  the  sinning  creature. 
This  would  satisfy  justice;  for  justice  is  satisfied 
when  the  thing  which  is  wrong  is  punished  according 
to  its  desert.  Hence,  it  was  fit,  when  by  a  constitu- 
tion, holy,  just,  and  good,  Adam  was  made  a  public 
11 


122  ATONEMENT — OLD  THEOLOGY. 

head,  to  represent  his  race,  and  act  not  only  for  him- 
self, but  for  all  his  posterity ;  it  was  fit,  I  say,  that 
he  and  all  his  race,  for  his  first  transgression,  should 
lose  the  favour,  and  fall  under  the  everlasting  dis- 
pleasure of  the  Almighty.  It  Tvas  fit  that  God 
should  be  infinitely  displeased  at  so  abominable  a 
thing — and  that  as  Governor  of  the  world,  he  should 
publicly  bear  testimony  against  it,  as  an  infinite  evil, 
by  inflicting  the  infinite  punishment  the  law  threat- 
ened ;  i.  e.  by  damning  the  whole  world.  This  would 
have  satisfied  justice;  for  justice  is  satisfied  when 
justice  takes  place — when  the  guilty  are  treated  with 
that  severity  they  ought  to  be — when  sin  is  punished 
as  being  what  it  is.  Now  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of 
God,  has,  by  his  Father's  appointment  and  appro- 
bation, assumed  our  nature — taken  the  place  of  a 
guilty  world — and  had  not  only  Adam's  first  trans- 
gression, but  the  iniquities  of  us  all  laid  upon  him, 
and  in  our  room  and  stead,  hath  suffered  the  wrath 
of  God,  the  curse  of  the  law,  offering  up  himself  a 
sacrifice  to  God  for  the  sins  of  men:  and  hereby  the 
infinite  evil  of  sin  and  the  righteousness  of  the  law 
are  publicly  owned  and  acknowledged,  and  the  de- 
served punishment  voluntarily  submitted  unto  by 
man,  i.  e.  by  his  representative:  and  thus  justice  is 
satisfied;  for  justice  is  satisfied  when  justice  takes 
place ;  and  sin  is  now  treated  as  being  what  it  is,  as 
much  as  if  God  had  damned  the  whole  world;  and 
God,  as  Governor,  appears  as  severe  against  it. 
And  thus  the  ric!;htcousness  of  God  is  declared  and 
manifested,  by  Christ's  being  set  forth  to  be  a  propi- 


REMARKS   OP   BATES;    OWEN;    ETC.  123 

tiatlon  for  sin ;  and  he  may  now  be  just  and  yet  jus- 
tify him  that  believes  in  Jesus." — True  Beligioii 
Delineated^  pp.  332,  333. 

Similar  to  the  views  here  expressed,  were  those  of 
the  early  European  divines.  "There  was  no  defect 
in  the  payment  he  made.  We  owed  a  debt  of  blood 
to  the  law,  and  his  life  was  offered  up  as  a  sacrifice; 
otherwise  the  law  had  remained  in  its  full  vigour 
and  justice  had  been  unsatisfied.  That  a  divine 
person  hath  suffered  our  punishment,  is  properly  the 

reason  of  our  redemption." "  The  blood  of 

Christ  shed,  (Matt.  xxvi.  28,)  poured  forth  from  his 
veins  and  offered  up  to  God,  in  that  precise  consid- 
eration, ratifies  the  I^ew  Testament.  The  sum  is, 
our  Saviour  by  his  death  suffered  the  malediction  of 
the  law,  and  his  divine  nature  gave  a  full  value  to 
his  sufferings." "And  God,  who  was  infi- 
nitely provoked,  is  infinitely  pleased." — Bates. 

"A  surety,  sponsor,  for  us,  the  Lord  Christ  was, 
by  his  voluntary  undertaking  out  of  his  rich  grace 
and  love,  to  do,  answer,  and  perform  all  that  is  re- 
quired on  our  parts,  that  we  may  enjoy  the  benefits 
of  the  covenant,  the  grace  and  glory  prepared,  pro- 
posed, and  promised  in  it,  in  the  way  and  manner 
determined  on  by  divine  wisdom.  And  this  may  be 
reduced  unto  two  heads:  1.  His  answering  for  our 
transgressions  against  the  first  covenant.  2.  His 
purchase  and  procurement  of  the  grace  of  the  new. 
He  was  made  a  curse  for  us,  that  the  blessing  of 
Abraham  might  come  upon  us.  Gal.  iii.  13 — 15. 
....  That   is,   he  underivent   the  punishment  due 


124  ATONEMENT — OLD   THEOLOGY. 

unto  our  sins,  to  make  atonement  for  us,  by  offering 
himself  a  i^ropitiatory  sacrifice  for  the  expiation  of 
our  sins." — Oiven, 

"  Christ  hath  redeemed  us  who  believe  in  his  name 
from  the  terrible  curse  of  the  law,  and  bought  us  off 
from  that  servitude  and  misery  to  which  it  inexorably 
doomed  us,  by  being  himself  made  a  curse  for  us,  and 
enduring  the  penalty  which  our  sins  had  deserved." — 
Doddridge. 

"  I  wonder  that  Jerome  and  Erasmus  should  labour 
and  seek  for  I  know  not  what  figure  of  speech,  to 
show  that  Christ  was  not  called  accursed.  Truly  in 
this  is  placed  all  our  hope :  in  this  the  infinite  love 
of  God  is  manifested :  in  this  is  placed  our  salvation, 
that  God  properly  and  without  any  figure,  poured  out 
all  Ms  wrath  on  his  own  Son;  caused  him  to  be 
accursed,  that  he  might  receive  us  into  his  favour. 
Finally,  without  any  figure,  Christ  was  made  a  curse 
for  us,  in  such  a  manner  that  unless  he  had  been 
truly  God,  he  must  have  remained  under  the  curse 
for  ever,  from  which,  for  our  sakes,  he  emerged.  For 
indeed,  if  the  obedience  be  figurative  and  imaginary, 
so  must  our  hope  of  glory  be." — Beza,  as  quoted  by 
Scott. 

These  several  quotations  all  proceed  on  the  princi- 
ple that  the  necessity  of  the  atonement  lay  i^rimarily 
in  the  nature  of  God:  that  his  justice  must  be  ap- 
peased  by  a  true  and  proper  satisfaction,  before  it 
was  possible  for  him  to  regard  sinners  with  favour ; 
and  that  this  satisfaction  having  been  made  by  the 
vicarious  and  expiatory  sacrifice  of  Jesus  Christ,  who 


SCRIPTURE   PROOFS.  125 

"hath  given  himself  for  us  an  offering  and  a  sacrifice 
to  God  for  a  sweet  smelling  savour,"  pardon  and  sal- 
vation are  freely  bestowed  upon  believing  sinners,  in 
perfect  harmony  with  all  the  divine  attributes. 
With  the  work  which  Christ  performed,  God  the 
Father  was  infinitely  well  pleased,  and  through  him 
he  looks  with  complacency  upon  all  who  are  united  to 
him  by  faith.  He  was  well  pleased,  because  Christ 
performed  all  that  law  and  justice  required — for,  as 
Bellamy  observes,  "justice  is  satisfied  when  justice 
takes  place."  "I  have  finished  the  work,"  said 
Christ,  "which  thou  gavest  me  to  do."  And  again, 
just  before  he  expired  he  said,  "It  is  finished."  His 
work  of  active  obedience  was  finished  when  he  uttered 
the  first;  and  when  he  spake  the  last,  his  work  of 
suffering  was  also  completed.  We  behold  him  now 
as  ''i\iQLamh  of  God,"  sacrificed  to  propitiate  the 
divine  favour;  John  i^29:  as  "the  propitiation  for 
our  sins;"  1  John  ii.  2:  as  a  '^ sin-offering''  pre- 
sented to  God  for  a  sacrifice  or  expiation ;  2  Cor.  v. 
21,  Gr. :  as  "a  ransom,"  or  redemption-price,  to 
"redeem  us  from  the  curse  of  the  law;"  Matt.  xx.  28 ; 
Gal.  iii.  13:  as  "the  man,  God's  fellow;"  "on  whom 
was  laid  the  iniquity  of  us  all;"  who  "bare. our  sins 
in  his  own  body  on  the  tree;"  Zech.  xiii.  7;  Isa.  liii. 
6;  1  Pet.  ii.  24:  as,  in  fine,  both  the  offering  and 
the  priest,  who  having  "appeared  to  put  away  sin  by 
the  sacrifice  of  himself,"  "offered  himself  without 
spot  to  God,"  and,  "by  his  own  blood,  entered  into 
the  holy  place,  having  obtained  eternal  redemption 
for  us;"  Heb.  ix.  12,  14,  26.  How  explicit  are 
11* 


126  SCRIPTURE  PROOFS. 

these  passages  with  regard  to  the  nature  of  Christ's 
sufferings !  If  Christ  did  not  offer  himself  a  sacrifice 
for  our  sins;  if  he  did  not  endure  substantially  the 
penalty  of  the  law  in  order  to  make  satisfaction  to 
divine  justice  in  behalf  of  those  who  should  believe  in 
him,  we  know  not  how  to  interpret  the  plainest  lan- 
guage. 

It  has  been  objected  that  the  idea  of  j^itni's/iweni 
was  not  involved  in  the  Jewish  sacrifices,  and  hence 
that  those  passages  which  describe  Christ's  mediato- 
rial work  by  allusions  to  those  sacrifices,  do  not  teach 
that  his  sufferings  were  i^enal.  By  a  reference  to 
Magee  on  "Atonement  and  Sacrifice,"  it  will  be  seen 
that  the  Jews  regarded  the  victims  offered  in  sacrifice 
as  ^'hearing  the  guilt"  of  the  people;  which  is  the 
same  thing  as  saying  that  they  bore  their  punish- 
ment, because  guilt  and  punishment  are  correlates  of 
each  other.  The  following  remarks  of  Patrick  in  his 
Commentary  on  Lev.  xvi.  21,  22,  are  to  the  same 
effect:  "Laying  of  the  hand  upon  the  head  of  the 
beast  was  a  rite  used  in  all  sorts  of  sacrifices, 
whether  burnt-offerings,  peace-offerings,  or  sin-offer- 
ings." ....  "This  rite  signifies  as  much  as  if  they 
had  said,  whatever  we  have  done  amiss,  let  not  us, 
but  this  sacrifice  be  charged  with  it ;  that  is,  let  it 
bear  the  punishment  which  we  deserve."  ....  "By 
putting  his  hand  on  the  head  of  the  goat  and  confess- 
ing their  sins  over  him  (with  prayer  to  God  to  remit 
them)  they  were  all  charged  upon  the  goat,  and  the 
punishment  of  them  transferred  from  the  Israelites 
unto  it."   ....  "And  it  appears  by  the  form  of  all 


SCRIPTURE   PROOFS.  127 

other  sin-offerings,  whicli  were  occasionallj  offered  at 
other  times,  that  he  who  brought  them  put  off  the 
guilt  which  he  had  contracted,  from  himself,  and  laid 
it  on  the  sacrifice  which  was  to  die  for  him." 
Again;  "This  [i.  e.  the  goat's  bearing  upon  him  all 
their  iniquities]  shows  more  fully  still  the  nature  of 
this  sacrifice,  in  which  all  their  iniquities,  i.  e.  the 
punishment  of  them  was  laid,  that  he  might  carry 
them  away.  For  this  goat  was  not  capable  to  bear 
their  sins,  but  only  their  punishment;  as  Christ  also 
did,  who  knew  no  sin,  and  yet  was  made  sin,  by 
having  the  punishment  of  our  sins  laid  on  him." 

So  clearly  is  this  doctrine  taught,  and  so  adapted 
is  it  to  remedy  the  guilt  and  misery  of  our  fallen  con- 
dition, that  we  doubt  whether  a  mind  truly  enlight- 
ened can  fail  to  perceive  it,  or  an  awakened  con- 
science be  insensible  to  its  value.  In  view  of  it,  I 
am  disposed  to  exclaim  with  grateful  emotions,  "0 
Lord,  I  will  praise  thee:  though  thou  wast  angry 
with  me,  thine  anger  is  turned  away,  and  thou  com- 
fortest  me."  "God  is  in  Christ  reconciling  the 
world  unto  himself,  not  imputing  their  trespasses  unto 
them."  "Whosoever  believeth  on  him  shall  not  be 
confounded." 

"With  joy,  with  grief,  that  healing  hand  I  see ; 
Alas !  how  low !  how  far  beneath  the  skies. 
The  skies  it  formed,  and  now  it  bleeds  for  me — 
But  bleeds  the  balm  I  want — 
There  hangs  all  human  hope ;  that  nail  supports 
The  falling  universe :  that  gone,  we  drop ; 
Horror  receives  us,  and  the  dismal  wish 
Creation  had  been  smothered  in  her  birth." 


128  JUSTIFICATION   BY   FAITH. 


CHAPTER  yi. 

JUSTIFICATION — A    CONTINUATION    OF    THE   PRECEDING    CHAPTER. 

Intimately  connected  "witli  the  doctrine  of  atone- 
ment, is  that  of  justification.  The  different  views, 
therefore,  with  regard  to  the  former,  which  have  been 
exhibited  in  the  last  chapter,  will  give  a  correspond- 
ing complexion  to  our  sentiments  concerning  the  lat- 
ter. Those  who  maintain  that  Christ  obeyed  the  law 
and  suffered  its  penalty  in  our  stead,  and  thereby 
made  a  true  and  proper  satisfaction  to  divine  justice, 
believe  that  his  obedience  and  sufferings,  constituting 
what  is  usually  styled  his  righteousness,  are  imputed 
to  the  believer  for  his  justification;  Christ's  right- 
eousness being  received  by  faith  as  the  instrument. 
Accordingly,  justification  consists  not  only  in  the 
pardon  of  sin,  or,  in  other  words,  in  the  release  of 
the  believing  sinner  from  punishment;  but  also  in  the 
acceptance  of  his  person  as  righteous  in  the  eye  of 
the  law,  through  the  obedience  of  Christ  reckoned  or 
imputed  to  him ;  by  w^hich  he  has  a  title  to  eternal 
life. 

On  the  contrary,  those  who  deny  that  Christ  obeyed 
the  law  and  suffered  its  penalty  as  our  substitute, 
deny  also  the  imputation  of  his  righteousness  for  our 
justification;  and  though  they  retain  the  word  justi- 
fication, they  make  it  consist  in  mere  'pardon,^     In 

*  "The  pardon  of  sin  alone  can  with  no  propriety  be  deno- 
minated justification.     Pardon  and  justification  are  not  only 


( 


VIEWS   OP   LUTHER.  129 

tte  eye  of  the  law,  the  believer,  according  to  their 
views,  is  not  justified  at  all,  and  never  will  be  through 
eternity.  Though  on  the  ground  of  what  Christ  has 
done,  God  is  pleased  to  forgive  the  sinner  upon  his 
believing,  Christ's  righteousness  is  not  reckoned  in 
any  sense  as  his,  or  set  down  to  his  account.  He  be- 
lieves, and  his  faitli^  or  act  of  believing,  is  accounted 
to  him  for  righteousness ;  that  is,  faith  is  so  reckoned 
to  his  account,  that  God  treats  him  as  if  he  were 
righteous. 

That  the  views  first  given  accord  with  the  general 
sentiments  of  the  church  since  the  Reformation  is  ca- 
pable of  abundant  proof.  Though  in  the  time  of  the 
Reformers  the  opponents  of  the  true  doctrine  did  not 
take  the  same  ground,  in  every  respect,  which  has 
been  taken  since,  and  which  is  described  in  the  state- 
ment just  made  concerning  the  views  entertained  by 
the  advocates  of  the  New  Theology ;  in  one  particu- 
lar they  are  all  agreed,  viz:  in  rejecting  the  imputa- 
tion of  Christ's  righteousness;  the  adoption  or  denial 
of  which  is  the  basis  of  all  the  other  diflferences  that 
exist  on  this  subject.  To  this  doctrine,  therefore, 
the    Reformers   clung,   as   the    sheet-anchor   of  the 

distinct,  but  in  common  cases,  utterly  incompatible.  A  culprit 
tried  and  condemned  may  among  men  be  pardoned,  but  it 
would  be  a  solecism  to  say,  that  such  a  man  was  justified."  .... 
"But  by  the  plan  of  salvation  through  Christ,  there  is  not  only 
a  ground  for  pardon,  but  there  is  rendered  to  the  law  a  right- 
eousness, which  lays  the  foundation  for  an  act  of  justification. 
By  pardon  the  sinner  is  freed  from  condemnation;  by  justifi- 
cation he  is  entitled  to  the  heavenly  inheritance." — Dr.  Alex- 
wider. 


130  JUSTIFICATION    BY   FAITH. 

Christian  faith.  Justification  by  faith,  through  tho 
imputed  righteousness  of  Christ — this  was  their  doc- 
trine. And  so  important  did  they  regard  it,  that 
Luther  was  accustomed  to  denominate  it,  (as  is  well 
known,)  articulus  stantis  vel  cadentis  ecclesise;  the 
very  pillar  on  which  the  church  rests,  a  denial  of 
which  must  result  in  her  ruin.  The  manner  in  which 
his  mind  was  brought  to  entertain  clear  views  on  this 
subject  is  highly  interesting.  "Three  days  and  three 
nights  together  he  lay  upon  his  bed  without  meat, 
drink,  or  any  sleep,  like  a  dead  man,  (as  some  do 
write  of  him,)  labouring  in  soul  and  spirit  upon  a 
certain  place  of  St.  Paul  in  the  third  chapter  of  the 
Romans,  "to  declare  his  righteousness,"  [or  justice,] 
thinking  Christ  to  be  sent  for  no  other  end  but  to 
show  forth  God's  justice,  as  an  executor  of  his  law ; 
till  at  length  being  assured  and  satisfied  by  the  Lord, 
touching  the  right  meaning  of  these  words,  signifying 
the  justice  of  God  to  be  executed  upon  his  Son  to 
save  us  from  the  stroke  thereof,  he  immediately  upon 
the  same,  started  up  from  his  bed,  so  confirmed  in 
faith,  as  nothing  afterwards  could  appal  him." — Life 
of  Luther,  prefixed  to  his  Commentary  on  the  Gala- 
tians. 

The  following  extracts  from  Owen  on  Justification 
will  show  the  nature  of  the  controversy  soon  after 
the  Reformation.  "  There  are  two  grand  parties  by 
w4iom  the  doctrine  of  justification  by  the  imputation 
of  the  righteousness  of  Christ  is  opposed,  namely, 
the  Papists  and  the  Socinians.  But  they  proceed  on 
difi'erent  principles,   and   unto  difi'erent  ends.      The 


EXTRACTS    FROM    OWEN.  131 

design  of  the  one  is  to  exalt  their  own    merits;  of 

the  other,  to  destroy  the  merit  of  Christ." 

"  Those  of  the  Roman  church  plainly  say,  that  upon 
the  infusion  of  a  habit  of  grace,  with  the  expulsion  of 
sin  and  the  renovation  of  our  natures  thereby,  which 
they  call  the  first  justification,  we  are  actually  justi- 
fied before  God,  by  our  own  works  of  righteousness." 

"They  say,  'that  this  righteousness  of 

works  is  not  absolutely  perfect,  nor  in  itself  able  to 
justify  us  in  the  sight  of  God,  but  owes  all  its  worth 
and    dignity   unto   this   purpose   unto  the   merit  of 

Christ.' But  '  Christ  hath  only  merited  the 

first  grace  for  us,  that  we  therewith,  and  thereby, 

may   merit   life   eternal.' Hence    Hhose 

other  ingredients  of  confession,  absolution,  penances, 
or  commutations,  aids  from  saints  and  angels,  espe- 
cially the  blessed  Virgin,  all  warmed  by  the  fire  of 
purgatory,  and  confidently  administered  unto  persons 

sick  of  ignorance,  darkness,  and  sin.'" "The 

Socinians,  who  expressly  oppose  the  imputation  of  the 
righteousness  of  Christ,  plead  for  a  participation  of 

its  eiFects  or  benefits  only." "He  [Socinus] 

supposeth,  that  if  all  he  did  in  a  way  of  obedience, 
was  due  from  himself  on  his  own  account,  and  was 
only  the  duty  which  he  owed  unto  God  for  himself  in 
his  station  and  circumstances,  as  a  man  in  this  world, 
it  cannot  be  meritorious  for  us,  nor  any  way  imputed 
unto  us.  And  in  like  manner  to  weaken  the  doctrine 
of  his  satisfaction,  and  the  imputation  thereof  unto 
us,  he  contends  that  Christ  ofi'ered  as  a  priest  for 
himself,  in  that  kind  of  offering  which  he  made  on  the 


132  RIGHTEOUSNESS   OF   CHRIST. 

cross." "Hereby   he    excludes   the   church 

from  any  benefit  by  the  mediation  of  Christ,  but  only 
■what  consists  in  his  doctrine,  example,  and  the  exer- 
cise of  his  power  in  heaven  for  our  good." 

a  We  grant  an  inherent  righteousness  in  all  that  do 
believe."  .  .  .  .  "  ^For  the  fruit  of  the  Spirit  is  in  all 
goodness,  and  righteousness,  and  truth.'  Eph.  v.  9. 
'  Being  made  free  from  sin,  we  became  the  servants 
of  righteousness,'  Rom.  vi.  18.  And  our  duty  it  is 
to  ^follow  after  righteousness,  godliness,  faith,  love, 
meekness,'  1  Tim.  ii.  22."  ....  "But  although  this 
righteousness  of  believers  be  on  other  accounts  like  the 
fruit  of  the  vine,  that  glads  the  heart  of  God  and  man, 
yet  as  unto  our  justification  before  God,  it  is  like  the 
wood  of  the  vine — a  pin  is  not  to  be  taken  from  it  to 
hang  any  weight  of  this  cause  upon."  ....  "That 
righteousness  which  neither  answereth  the  law  of  God, 
nor  the  end  of  God  in  our  justification  by  the  gospel, 
is  not  that  whereon  we  are  justified.  But  such  is  this 
inherent  righteousness  of  believers,  even  of  the  best 
of  them."  .  .  .  .  "It  is  imperfect  with  respect  unto 
every  act  and  duty  of  it,  whether  internal  or  external. 
There  is  iniquity  cleaving  unto  our  holy  things,  and 
all  our  'righteousness  are  as  filthy  rags.'  Isa.  Ixiv. 
6." 

"That  which  is  imputed,  is  the  righteousness  of 
Christ;  and  briefly  I  understand  hereby,  his  whole 
obedience  unto  God  in  all  that  he  did  and  suflfered 
for  the  church.  This  I  say  is  imputed  unto  believers, 
so  as  to  become  their  only  righteousness  before  God 
unto  the  justification  of  life."  ....  "The  judgment 


EXTRACTS    FROM    OWEN.  133 

of  tlie  reformed  cliurclies  herein  is  known  unto  all." 
.  .  .  .  "  Especially  the  Church  of  England  is  in  her 
doctrine  express  as  unto  the  imputation  of  the  right- 
eousness of  Christ,  both  active  and  passive,  as  it  is 
usually  distinguished.  This  hath  been  of  late  so  fully 
manifested  out  of  her  authentic  writings,  that  is,  the 
articles  of  religion,  and  books  of  homilies,  and  other 
writings  publicly  authorized,  that  it  is  altogether 
needless  to  give  any  further  demonstration  of  it." 
.  .  .  .  "The  law  hath  two  parts  or  powers;  1.  Its 
preceptive  part 2.  The  sanction  on  supposi- 
tion of  disobedience,  binding  the  sinner  unto  punish- 
ment." ....  "The  Lord  Jesus  Christ  fulfilled  the 
whole  law  for  us ;  he  did  not  only  undergo  the  penal- 
ty of  it  due  unto  our  sins,  but  also  yielded  that  per- 
fect obedience  which  it  did  require."  ....  "Christ's 
fulfilling  the  law  in  obedience  unto  its  commands,  is 
no  less  imputed  unto  us  for  our  justification,  than  his 
undergoing  the  penalty  of  it  is."  ....  "For  why 
was  it  necessary,  or  why  would  God  have  it  so,  that 
the  Lord  Christ,  as  the  surety  of  the  covenant,  should 
undergo  the  curse  and  penalty  of  the  law,  which  we 
had  incurred  the  guilt  of,  by  sin,  that  we  may  be  jus- 
tified in  his  sight?  "Was  it  not  that  the  glory  and 
honour  of  his  righteousness,  as  the  author  of  the  law, 
and  the  supreme  Governor  of  all  mankind  thereby, 
might  not  be  violated  in  the  absolute  impunity  of  the 
infringers  of  it?  And  if  it  was  requisite  unto  the 
glory  of  God,  that  the  penalty  of  the  law  should  be 
undergone  for  us,  or  suffered  by  our  surety  in  our 
stead,  because  we  had  sinned;  wherefore  is  it  not  as 
12 


134  RIGHTEOUSNESS    OP   CHRIST. 

requisite  unto  the  glory  of  God,  that  the  preceptive 
part  of  the  law  be  complied  withal  for  us,  inasmuch 
as  obedience  thereunto  is  required  of  us?  And  as  we 
are  no  more  able  of  ourselves  to  fulfil  the  law,  in  a 
way  of  obedience,  than  to  undergo  the  penalty  of  it, 
so  as  that  we  may  be  justified  thereby ;  so  no  reason 
can  be  given,  why  God  is  not  as  much  concerned  in 
honour  and  glory,  that  the  preceptive  power  and  part 
of  the  law  be  complied  withal  by  perfect  obedience, 
as  that  the  sanction  of  it  be  established  by  undergoing 
its  penalty."  ....  "The  conscience  of  a  convinced 
sinner,  who  presents  himself  in  the  presence  of  God, 
finds  all  practically  reduced  unto  this  one  point,  viz : 
whether  he  will  trust  unto  his  own  personal  inherent 
righteousness,  or  in  a  full  renunciation  of  it,  betake 
himself  unto  the  grace  of  God,  and  the  righteousness 
of  Christ  alone."  ....  "The  latter  is  the  true  and 
only  relief  of  distressed  consciences,  of  sinners  who 
are  weary  and  heavy  laden — that  which  alone  they 
may  oppose  unto  the  sentence  of  the  law,  and  inter- 
pose between  God's  justice  and  their  souls,  w^herein 
they  may  take  shelter  from  the  storms  of  that  wrath 
which  abideth  on  them  that  believe  not." 

These  views  of  Owen  accord  with  the  doctrine  of 
our  Confession  of  Faith  and  with  the  sentiments  of 
other  standard  writers.  The  language  of  our  Con- 
fession is  as  follows:  "Those  whom  God  efi'ectually 
calleth,  he  also  freely  justifieth;  not  by  infusing 
righteousness  into  them,  but  by  pardoning  their 
sins,  and  by  accounting  and  accepting  their  per- 
sons  as   righteous,   not   for   any   thing   wrought   in 


Q 


VIEWS   OP   CALVIN.  135 

them,  or  done  by  them,  but  for  Christ's  sake  alone : 
not  by  imputing  faith  itself,  the  act  of  believing, 
or  any  other  evangelical  obedience  to  them,  as  their 
righteousness;  but  by  imputing  the  obedience  and 
satisfaction  of  Christ  unto  them,  they  receiving  and 
resting  on  him  and  his  righteousness  by  faith." 
Says  Calvin,  "He  is  said  to  be  justified  in  the  sight 
of  Crod,  who  in  the  divine  judgment  is  reputed  right- 
eous, and  accepted  on  account  of  his  righteousness." 
.  .  .  "He  must  be  said,  therefore,  to  be  justified  hy 
works,  whose  life  discovers  such  purity  and  holiness 
as  to  deserve  the  character  of  righteousness  before 
the  throne  of  God;  or  who,  by  the  integrity  of  his 
works,  can  answer  and  satisfy  the  divine  judgment. 
On  the  other  hand,  he  will  be  justified  hy  faith,  who 
being  excluded  from  the  righteousness  of  works,  ap- 
prehends by  faith  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  invest- 
ed in  which  he  appears  in  the  sight  of  God,  not  as 
a  sinner,  but  as  a  righteous  man.  Thus  we  simply 
explain  justification  to  be  an  acceptance  by  which 
God  receives  into  his  favour  and  esteems  us  as 
righteous  persons;  and  we  say  that  it  consists  in 
the  remission  of  sins  and  the  imputation  of  Christ's 
righteousness. — Qalvin's  Institutes,  vol.  2,  pp.  203, 
204. 

These  remarks,  let  it  be  remembered,  refer  to  our 
relation  to  God  in  point  of  law.  "Imputation  is 
never  represented  as  affecting  the  moral  character, 
but  merely  the  relation  of  men  to  God  and  his  law. 
To  impute  sin,  is  to  regard  and  treat  as  a  sinner; 
and  to  impute  righteousness  is  to  regard  and  treat 


136  RIGHTEOUSNESS   OF   CHRIST. 

as  righteous." — Hodge  on  the  Romans,  pp.  225,  226. 
Though  personally  considered,  we  are  sinners,  and  as 
such,  wholly  undeserving,  yet  when  we  are  united  to 
Christ  by  faith,  his  righteousness  is  so  imputed  to  us, 
or  reckoned  in  law  to  our  account,  that  God  regards 
and  treats  us  as  righteous — "the  righteousness  of  the 
law  being"  considered  as  "fulfilled  in  us,"  because 
Christ  has  fulfilled  it  for  us.  It  is  therefore  no 
ground  for  self-complacency,  but  of  humiliation  and 
gratitude. 

With  reference  to  those  to  whom  Christ's  righteous- 
ness is  imputed  for  their  justification,  our  standards 
say,  "  Yet  inasmuch  as  he  [Christ]  was  given  by  the 
jFather  for  them,  and  his  obedience  and  satisfaction 
accepted  in  their  stead,  and  both  freely,  not  for  any 
thing  in  them,  their  justification  is  only  of  free  grace ; 
that  both  the  exact  justice  and  rich  grace  of  God 
might  be  glorified  in  the  justification  of  sinners." 
Thus,  according  to  this  view  of  the  doctrine,  justice 
and  mercy  are  harmoniously  and  sweetly  blended. 
While  the  sinner  is  saved  without  confiicting  with  the 
claims  of  God's  law,  it  is  "all  to  the  praise  of  his 
glorious  grace."  We  have  other  quotations  to  make 
on  this  subject,  but  shall  reserve  them  until  we  pre- 
sent a  few  specimens  of  the  New  Theology. 

Says  Mr.  Finney,  "Gospel  justification  is  not  by 
the  imputed  righteousness  of  Christ.  Under  the  gos- 
pel, sinners  are  not  justified  by  having  the  obedience 
of  Jesus  Christ  set  down  to  their  account,  as  if  he 
had  obeyed  the  law  for  them  or  in  their  stead.  It 
is  not  an  uncommon  mistake  to  suppose  that  when 


SPECIMENS   OP   NEW   VIEWS.  137 

sinners  are  justified  under  the  gospel  they  are  ac- 
counted righteous  in  the  eye  of  the  law,  by  having 
the  obedience  or  righteousness  of  Christ  imputed  to 
them.  I  have  not  time  to  go  into  an  examination  of 
this  subject  now.  I  can  only  say  that  this  idea  is 
absurd  and  impossible,  for  the  reason  that  Jesus 
Christ  was  bound  to  obey  the  law  for  himself,  and 
could  no  more  perform  works  of  supererogation,  or 
obey  on  our  account,  than  any  body  else."*  .... 
"Abraham's  faith  was  imputed  to  him  for  righteous- 
ness, because  it  was  itself  an  act  of  righteousness,  and 
because  it  worked  by  love,  and  therefore  produced 
holiness.  Justifying  faith  is  holiness,  so  far  as  it 
goes,  and  produces  holiness  of  heart  and  life,  and  is 
imputed  to  the  believer  as  holiness,  not  instead  of 
holiness." — Lectures  to  Professing  CliristianSy  pp. 
215,  216. 

Mr.  Barnes  says,  "  The  phrase  righteousness  of 
God  is  equivalent  to  Cfod's  plan  of  justifying  men'* 
— in  regard  to  which,  he  observes,  "  It  is  not  that  Ids 
righteousness  becomes  ours.  This  is  not  true;  and 
there  is  no  intelligible  sense  in  which  that  can  be  un- 
derstood. But  it  is  God's  plan  for  pardoning  sin, 
and  for  treating  %is  as  if  we  had  not  committed  it." — 
Notes  on  the  Romans,  pp.  28,  29.  Again,  (p.  94,)  in 
reference  to  the  phrase,  "Abraham  believed  God, 
and  it  was  counted  unto  him  for  righteousness,"  he  re- 
marks, "  The  word  4t'  here,  evidently  refers  to  the  act 

*  This  is  a  Socinian  objection ;  and  on  Socinian  principles 
it  is  valid ;  but  if  Christ  be  divine,  it  has  no  force. 

12* 


138  JUSTIFICATION — NEW   THEOLOGY. 

of  believing.  It  does  not  refer  to  tlie  righteousness  of 
another — of  Grod,  or  of  the  3Iessiah;  but  the  discus- 
sion is  solely  of  the  strong  act  of  Abraham's  faith, 
which  in  some  sense  was  counted  to  him  for  righteous- 
ness. In  what  sense  this  was,  is  explained  directly 
after.  All  that  is  material  to  remark  here  is,  that 
the  act  of  Abraham,  the  strong  confidence  of  his  mind 
in  the  promises  of  God,  his  unwavering  assurance  that 
what  God  had  promised  he  would  perform,  was  reck- 
oned for  righteousness.  The  same  thing  is  more  fully 
expressed,  verse  18,  22.  When,  therefore,  it  is  said 
that  the  righteousness  of  Christ  is  accounted  or  im- 
puted to  us ;  when  it  is  said  that  his  merits  are  trans- 
ferred and  reckoned  as  ours;  whatever  may  be  the 
truth  of  the  doctrine,  it  cannot  be  defended  by  this 
passage  of  Scripture.  Faith  is  always  an  act  of  the 
mind."  ....  "  Grod  promises;  the  man  believes;  and 
this  is  the  whole  of  it."  It  is  manifest  that  Mr. 
Barnes  intended  in  these  passages  to  deny  that  we 
are  justified  by  the  imputation  of  Christ's  righteous- 
ness; and  with  regard  to  the  manner  in  which  we  are 
justified,  he  is  directly  at  variance  with  the  Confes- 
sion of  Faith.  He  teaches  that  the  act  of  believing  is 
imputed  for  righteousness;  and  the  Confession  of 
Faith  declares  expressly  to  the  contrary — "not  by 
imputing  faith  itself,  the  act  of  believing,  or  any 
other  evangelical  obedience  to  them,  as  their  right- 
eousness." The  Confession  teaches,  moreover,  that 
we  are  justified  on  principles  of  law  and  justice,  as 
well  as  of  grace  and  mercy — all  of  them  harmonious- 
ly meeting  together  in  the  cross  of  Christ.     He  inti- 


JUSTIFICATION — NEW   THEOLOGY.  139 

mates  that  legal  principles  have  nothing  to  do  in  the 
matter.  "  It  [Rom.  i.  17,]  does  not  touch  the  question, 
whether  it  is  by  imputed  righteousness  or  not ;  it  does 
not  say  that  it  is  on  legal  principles." — Notes  on  the 
Romans,  p.  28.  This  sentence,  though  it  does  not 
amount  to  a  positive  denial,  was  designed,  we  have 
no  doubt,  to  convey  this  idea.  Similar  forms  of  ex- 
pression often  occur  in  this  volume,  where  it  is  evi- 
dent from  the  connection,  he  means  to  be  understood 
as  denying  the  doctrine. 

The  New  Haven  divines  appear  to  entertain  the 
same  sentiments ;  as  the  following  from  the  Christian 
(Spectator  will  serve  to  show:  "What  then  is  the 
ground  on  which  the  penitent  sinner  is  pardoned?  It 
is  not  that  the  sufferings  of  Christ  were  of  the  nature 
of  punishment;  for  being  innocent,  he  had  no  sins  of 
his  own  to  be  punished  for;  and  as  he  was  a  distinct 
being  from  us,  he  could  not  be  strictly  punished  for 
ours."  .  .  .  .  "It  is  not  that  by  his  death  he  satisfied 
the  penal  justice  of  God;  for  if  he  did,  punishment 
could  not  be  equitably  inflicted  on  sinners,  whether 
penitent  or  not.  Nor  indeed  is  it  that  the  righteous- 
ness of  Christ  is  imputed  to  those  who  are  pardoned, 
either  as  a  personal  quality,  or  in  such  a  manner  as 
to  be  accounted  to  them  as  if  it  were  theirs.  Nothing 
can  be  imputed  but  that  which  is  their  own  personal 
attribute  or  act.     Hence,  though  Dr.  B.*  does  in  one 

*  The  person  referred  to  here  is  not  Dr.  Beman ;  but  if  one 
vrill  turn  to  Beman  on  the  Atonement,  p.  51,  he  will  perceive 
that  most  of  what  is  here  said  is  more  applicable  to  him  than 
to  Dr.  Bellamy,  whom  it  is  believed  the  reviewer  has  treated 


140  JUSTIFICATION — NEW   THEOLOGY. 

place  speak  of  the  imputation  of  Christ's  righteous- 
ness to  believers,  he  obviously  refers  not  to  its  trans- 
fer, but  to  the  enjoyment  of  its  consequences;  and  he 
more  commonly  speaks  'of  faith,'  a  personal  quality 
of  the  saints,  *as  imputed  for  righteousness.'  What 
then  is  the  ground  on  which  forgiveness  is  bestowed? 
It  is  simply  this,  that  the  death  of  Christ  removed 
the  difficulties  which  would  otherwise  have  eternally 
barred  the  exercise  of  pardoning  mercy." — Christian 
Spectator,  September,  1830. 

How  radically  different  are  these  sentiments  from 
the  doctrines  of  justification  as  held  by  most  evan- 
gelical churches !  If  they  are  scriptural,  then  multi- 
tudes of  Christians  have  mistaken  the  way  of  salva- 
tion. But  if  they  are  erroneous,  (as  we  believe  them 
to  be,)  then  those  who  embrace  them  have  reason  to 
examine  anew  the  foundation  of  their  hopes  for  eter- 
nity. The  two  systems  can  never  be  made  to  har- 
monize with  each  other.  If  the  one  is  scriptural,  the 
other  must  fall ;  and  they  involve  points  which  affect 
so  seriously  the  great  and  everlasting  interests  of 
man,  that  no  one  ought  to  be  indifferent  with  regard 
to  them.     Indifference  here  would  be  highly  criminal. 

For  the  purpose  of  showing  how  fully  the  Old  The- 
ology on  this  subject  accords  with  the  general  voice 
of  the  church  since  the  Reformation,  we  shall  intro- 
duce a  few  additional  quotations. 

Bates. — ''There  are  but  two  ways  of  appearing 
before  the  righteous  and  supreme  Judge :  1.  In  sin- 
unfairly.  See  quotations  from  Dr.  Bellamy  in  subsequent 
pages. 


JUSTIFICATION — BATES — BELLAMY.  141 

less  obedience Whoever  presumes  to  appear 

before  God's  judgment-seat,  in  his  own  righteousness, 
shall  be  covered  with  confusion.  2.  By  the  right- 
eousness of  Christ.  This  alone  absolves  from  the 
guilt  of  sin,  saves  from  hell,  and  can  endure  the  trial 
of  God's  tribunal.  This  the  apostle  prized  as  his 
invaluable  treasure,  (Phil.  iii.  9,)  in  comparison  of 
which  all  other  .things  are  hut  dross  and  dung,  "that 
I  may  be  found  in  him,  not  having  mine  own  right- 
eousness, which  is  of  the  law,  but  that  which  is 
through  the  faith  of  Christ,  the  righteousness  which 
is  of  God  by  faith."  That  which  he  ordained  and 
rewarded  in  the  person  of  our  Redeemer,  he  cannot 
but  accept.  Now  this  righteousness  is  meritoriously 
imputed  to  believers.'" — Harmony  of  the  Divine 
Attributes,  pp.  298,  299. 

Bellamy. — "By  the  first  covenant,  the  constitution 
with  Adam,  his  perfect  obedience  through  his  ap- 
pointed time  of  trial,  would,  by  virtue  of  that  con- 
stitution or  covenant,  have  entitled  us  to  everlasting 
life.  By  the  second  covenant,  the  perfect  righteous- 
ness of  Christ,  the  second  Adam,  entitles  all  true 
believers  to  everlasting  life,  by  and  according  to  this 
new  and  living  way.  A  perfect  righteousness  was 
necessary  according  to  the  law  of  nature,  and  a  per- 
fect righteousness  is  insisted  upon  in  both  covenants. 
According  to  the  law  of  nature,  it  was  to  be  per- 
formed personally ;  but  according  to  both  covenants, 
it  is  appointed  to  be  performed  by  a  public  head. 
According  to  the  first  covenant  we  were  to  have  been 
interested  in  the  righteousness  of  our  public  head,  by 


142  JUSTIFICATION — ^EDWARDS. 

virtue  of  our  union  to  him  as  his  posterity,  for  whom 
he  was  appointed  to  act.     According  to  the  second 
covenant,  we  are  interested  in  the  righteousness  of 
Christ,  our  public  head,  by  virtue  of  our  union  to  him 
by  faith." — True  Religion  Delineated,  pp.  421,  422. 
Edwards. — "It   is   absolutely   necessary,    that   in 
order  to  a  sinner's  being  justified,  the  righteousness 
of  some  other  should  be  reckoned  to  his  account;  for 
it  is  declared  that  the  person  justified  is  looked  upon 
as  (in  himself)  ungodly ;  but  God  neither  will  nor  can 
justify  a  person  without  a  righteousness;  for  justifi- 
cation is  manifestly  di.  forensic  term,  as  the  word  is 
used  in  Scripture,  and  a  judicial  thing,  or  the  act  of 
a  judge.     So  that  if  a  person  should  be  justified  with- 
out  a   righteousness,   the  judgment   would    not    be 
according   to   truth.     The   sentence   of  justification 
would  be  a  false  sentence,  unless  there  be  a  righteous- 
ness performed,  that  is  by  the  judge  properly  looked 
upon  as  his.     To  say  that  God  does  not  justify  the 
sinner  without  sincere,  though  an  imperfect  obedi- 
ence, does  not  help  the  case ;  for  an  imperfect  right- 
eousness before  a  judge  is  no  righteousness."    .   .    .  . 
"God  doth  in  the  sentence  of  justification  pronounce 
a  sinner  perfectly  righteous,  or  else  he  would  need  a 
further  justification  after  he  is  justified."     .... 
"By  that  [Christ's]  righteousness  being  imputed  to 
us,  is  meant  no  other  than  this,  that  the  righteous- 
ness  of    Christ   is   accepted   for   us,    and   admitted 
instead  of  that  perfect  inherent  righteousness  which 
ought  to  be  in  ourselves.     Christ's  perfect  obedience 
shall  be  reckoned  to  our  account,  so  that  we  shall 


JUSTIFICATION — EDWARDS.  143 

have  tlie  benefit  of  it,  as  though  we  had  performed  it 
ourselves.  And  so  we  suppose  that  a  title  to  eternal 
life  is  given  us  as  the  reward  of  this  righteousness.'* 
.  .  .  .  "  There  is  the  very  same  need  of  Christ's 
obeying  the  law  in  our  stead,  in  order  to  the  reward, 
as  of  his  sufi*ering  the  penalty  of  the  law  in  our  stead, 
in  order  to  our  escaping  the  penalty;  and  the  same 
reason  why  one  .should  be  acepted  on  our  account,  as 

the  other." "Faith  justifies,  or  gives  an 

interest  in  Christ's  satisfaction  and  merits,  and  a 
right  to  the  benefits  procured  thereby,  as  it  thus 
makes  Christ  and  the  believer  one  in  the  acceptance 
of  the  supreme  Judge."  ....  "What  is  real  in  the 
union  between  Christ  and  his  people,  is  the  foun- 
dation of  what  is  legal;  that  is,  it  is  something  really 
in  them,  and  between  them,  uniting  them,  that  is  the 
ground  of  the  suitableness  of  their  being  accounted 
as  one  by  the  judge."  ....  "  God  does  not  give 
those  that  believe,  an  union  with  or  an  interest  in 
the  Saviour  as  a  reivard  for  faith,  but  only  because 
faith  is  the  soul's  active  uniting  with  Christ,  or  is 
itself  the  very  act  of  union,  on  their  part.'' 

Concerning  the  opinion  of  those  who  believe  justifi- 
cation to  be  nothing  more  than  pardon,  Edwards  ob- 
serves :  "  Some  suppose  that  nothing  more  is  intended 
in  Scripture  by  justification  than  barely  the  remission 
of  sins.  If  so,  it  is  very  strange,  if  we  consider  the 
nature  of  the  case;  for  it  is  most  evident,  and  none 
will  deny,  that  it  is  with  respect  to  the  rule  or  latv  of 
God,  we  are  under,  that  we  are  said  in  Scripture  to 
be  either  justified  or  condemned.     Now,  what  is  it  to 


144  JUSTinCATION — EDWARDS. 

justify  a  person  as  the  subject  of  a  law  or  rule,  but  to 
judge  him  as  standing  right  with  respect  to  that  rule  ? 
To  justify  a  person  in  a  particular  case,  is  to  approve 
of  him  as  standing  rights  as  subject  to  the  law  in  that 
case;  and  to  justify  in  general,  is  to  pass  him  in 
judgment,  as  standing  right  in  a  state  correspondent 
to  the  law  or  rule  in  general ;  but  certainly,  in  order 
to  a  person's  being  looked  on  as  standing  right 
with  respect  to  the  rule  in  general,  or  in  a  state 
corresponding  with  the  law  of  God,  more  is  need- 
ful than  not  having  the  guilt  of  sin;  for  whatever 
that  law  is,  whether  a  new  or  an  old  one,  doubtless 
something  positive  is  needed  in  order  to  its  being 
answered.  We  are  no  more  justified  by  the  voice  of 
the  law,  or  of  him  that  judges  according  to  it,  by  a 
mere  pardon  of  sin,  than  Adam,  our  first  surety,  was 
justified  by  the  law  at  the  first  point  of  his  existence, 
before  he  had  fulfilled  the  obedience  of  the  law,  or 
had  so  much  as  any  trial,  whether  he  would  fulfil  it 
or  no.  If  Adam  had  finished  his  course  of  perfect 
obedience,  he  would  have  been  justified ;  and  certainly 
his  justification  would  have  implied  something  more 
than  what  is  merely  negative;  he  would  have  been 
approved  of,  as  having  fulfilled  the  righteousness  of 
the  law,  and  accordingly  would  have  been  adjudged 
to  the  reward  of  it.  So  Christ,  our  second  surety, 
was  not  justified  till  he  had  done  the  work  the  Father 
had  appointed  him,  and  kept  the  Father's  command- 
ments through  all  trials ;  and  then  in  his  resurrection 
he  was  justified.  When  he  had  been  put  to  death  in 
the  flesh,  but  quickened  by  the  Spirit,  1  Pet.  iii.  18, 


JUSTIFICATION — DR.  ALEXANDER.  145 

then  he  that  was  manifest  in  the  flesh  was  justified  in 
the  Spirit,  1  Tim.  iii.  16;  but  God,  when  he  justified 
him  in  raising  him  from  the  dead,  did  not  only  re- 
lease him  from  his  humiliation  for  sin,  and  acquit  him 
from  any  further  sufi'ering  or  abasement  for  it,  but 
admitted  him  to  that  eternal  and  immortal  life,  and 
to  the  beginning  of  that  exaltation  that  was  the 
reward  of  what  he  had  done.  And,  indeed,  the  justifi- 
cation of  a  believer  is  no  other  than  his  being  admit- 
ted to  communion  in  the  justification  of  this  Head  and 
Surety  of  all  believers;  for  as  Christ  suffered  the 
punishment  of  sin,  not  as  a  private  person,  but  as  our 
Surety;  so  when,  after  this  sufi'ering,  he  was  raised 
from  the  dead,  he  was  therein  justified,  not  as  a  pri- 
vate person,  but  as  the  Surety  and  Representative  of 
all  that  should  believe  in  him."  ....  "To  suppose 
that  all  Christ  does  is  only  to  make  atonement  for  us 
by  sufi'ering,  is  to  make  him  our  Saviour  but  in  part. 
It  is  to  rob  him  of  half  his  glory  as  a  Saviour.  For 
if  so,  all  that  he  does  is  to  deliver  us  from  hell;  he 
does  not  purchase  heaven  for  us." — Discourse  on 
Justification. 

Alexander. — "  Some  have  attempted  to  evade  the 
doctrine  [of  the  imputation  of  Christ's  righteousness] 
by  alleging,  that  not  the  righteousness  of  Christ  but 
its  efi*ects  are  imputed  to  us.  They  who  talk  thus  do 
not  seem  to  understand  what  they  say.  It  must  be 
by  the  imputation  of  the  righteousness  that  the  good 
eff'ects  are  derived  to  us;  but  the  imputation  of  the 
eff'ects  themselves  cannot  be.  To  talk  of  imputing 
pardon — of  imputing  justification — imputing  peace, 
13 


146  VIEWS   or   DR.    ALEXANDER. 

&c.,  is  to  use  words  without  meaning.  What  we  are 
inquiring  after,  is  the  reason  why  these  blessings 
become  ours.  It  cannot  be  on  account  of  our  own 
righteousness,  which  is  of  the  law;  it  must  be  on 
account  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ.  The  next 
question  is,  how  does  that  righteousness  avail  to 
obtain  for  us  pardon  and  justification  and  peace  with 
God?  The  answer  is,  by  imputation;  that  is,  it  is  set 
down  to  our  credit.  God  accepts  it  on  our  behalf; 
yea,  he  bestows  it  upon  us.  If  there  be  any  such 
thing  as  imputation,  it  must  be  of  the  righteousness 
of  Christ  itself,  and  the  benefits  connected  with 
salvation  flow  from  this  imputation.  We  conclude, 
therefore,  that  the  righteousness  of  Christ  can  only 
justify  us,  by  being  imputed  to  us." 

In  reply  to  the  objection  that  this  doctrine  "makes 
the  sinner's  justification  a  matter  of  justice  and  not 
of  grace,"  he  says,  "All  theories  which  suppose  that 
grace  is  exercised  at  the  expense  of  justice,  or  that  in 
order  to  the  manifestation  of  grace,  law  and  justice 
must  be  suspended,  labour  under  a  radical  mistake  in 
theology,  which  cannot  but  introduce  darkness  and 
perplexity  into  their  whole  system.  Indeed,  if  law 
and  justice  could  have  been  set  aside  or  suspended, 
there  had  been  no  occasion  for  the  plan  of  redemp- 
tion. The  only  reason  why  sinners  could  not  be 
saved  was,  that  the  law  and  justice  of  God  stood  in 
the  way;  but  if,  by  a  sovereign  act,  these  obstacles 
could  have  been  removed,  salvation  might  have  been 
accomplished  without  an  atonement.  But  though  the 
Scriptures,  everywhere,   ascribe  salvation  to  grace, 


JUSTIFICATION — DE.  ALEXANDER.  147 

FREE  grace;  yet  they  never  teach  that  this  grace 
requires  God  to  deny  himself,  as  to  his  attribute  of 
justice;  or  that  law  and  justice  are  at  all  interfered 
with,  or  for  a  moment  suspended.  On  the  contrary, 
the  idea  is  continually  kept  in  view,  that  grace  reigns 
through  righteousness;  that  the  propitiation  of  Christ 
is  necessary,  that  God  may  be  just  and  yet  the  justi- 
fier  of  the  ungodly.  Redemption  is  the  obtaining 
deliverance  by  paying  a  price;  and  yet  redemption 
and  grace,  so  far  from  being  inconsistent,  are  con- 
stantly united,  as  parts  of  the  same  glorious  plan, 
according  to  the  Scriptures.  'In  whom  we  have 
redemption  through  his  blood,  the  forgiveness  of  sins, 
according  to  the  riches  of  his  grace.'  (Eph.  i.  7.) 
The  only  way  in  which  it  was  possible  for  grace  to 
be  exercised,  was  by  a  plan  which  made  provision  for 
the  complete  satisfaction  of  law  and  justice.  This 
was  the  great  problem,  to  the  solution  of  which  no 
finite  wisdom  was  competent;  but  which  the  infinite 
wisdom  of  Jehovah  has  accomplished  by  the  mission 
and  sacrifice  of  his  own  dear  Son.  What  is  objected, 
therefore,  is  a  thing  essential  to  the  exercise  of  grace. 
And  the  whole  appearance  of  plausibility  in  the  ob- 
jection arises  from  not  distinguishing  between  God's 
dealings  with  our  substitute  and  with  us.  To  him 
there  was  no  mercy  shown;  the  whole  process  was  in 
strict  execution  of  law  and  justice.  The  last  farthing 
due,  so  to  speak,  was  exacted  of  our  Surety,  when  he 
stood  in  our  place,  under  the  holy  and  sin-avenging 
law  of  God.  But  this  exercise  of  justice  towards  him 
was  the  very  thing  which  opened  the  way  for  super- 


148  REMARKS   OF   DR.    DODDRIDGE. 

abounding  mercy  towards  us.  And  this  cost  at  which 
the  sluices  of  grace  were  opened,  so  far  from  lessen- 
ing, constitutes  its  riches  and  glorj."* 

We  will  close  our  extracts  by  a  few  sentences  bear- 
ing upon  the  New-school  doctrine,  that  the  act  of  he- 
lieving  is  imputed  for  righteousness.  They  shall  be 
from  the  pen  of  Dr.  Doddridge,  in  his  note  on  the 
phrase,  "imputed  to  him  [Abraham]  for  righteous- 
ness;" which  is  the  principal  text  relied  upon  to 
prove  the  new  doctrine.  He  says,  "I  think  nothing 
can  be  easier  than  to  understand  how  this  may  be 
said  in  full  consistence  with  our  being  justified  by  the 
imputation  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  that  is,  our 
being  treated  by  God  as  righteous,  for  the  sake  of 
what  he  has  done  and  suffered:  for  though  this  be 
the  meritorious  cause  of  our  acceptance  with  God, 
yet  faith  may  be  said  to  be  imputed  to  us,  in  order  to 
our  being  justified,  or  becoming  righteous:  that  is, 
according  to  the  view  which  I  have  elsewhere  more 
largely  stated,  as  we  are  charged  as  debtors  in  the 
book  of  God's  account,  what  Christ  has  done  in  fulfill- 
ing all  righteousness  for  us  is  charged  as  the  grand 
balance  of  the  account ;  but  that  it  may  appear  that 
we  are  according  to  the  tenor  of  the  gospel  entitled 

■^  This  extract  from  Dr.  Alexander,  and  those  which  have 
"been  before  given  from  his  pen,  are  contained  in  a  short  and 
able  Treatise  on  Justification  by  Faith,  written  by  him  for  the 
Presbyterian  Tract  Society,  now  the  Board  of  Publication  of 
the  Presbyterian  Church.  This  tract,  and  the  other  tracts 
published  by  that  Board,  we  recommend  to  the  perusal  of  our 
readers. 


REMARKS   OP   DR.    BELLAMY.  149 

to  the  benefit  of  this,  it  is  also  entered  in  the  book  of 
God's  remembrance  "that  we  are  believers:"  and 
this  appearing,  we  are  graciously  discharged,  yea, 
rewarded,  as  if  we  ourselves  had  been  perfectly  inno- 
cent and  obedient." 

In  concluding  the  present  chapter,  we  wish  again 
to  call  the  attention  of  the  reader  to  the  intimate 
connection  which  exists  between  the  doctrine  of  justi- 
fication and  most  of  the  other  doctrines  which  have 
been  brought  to  view  in  the  preceding  pages.  Though 
this  has  been  already  alluded  to,  when  speaking  of 
imputation  and  original  sin,  the  truth  of  the  remark 
was  not,  perhaps,  so  obvious  as  it  must  be  now.  The 
federal  headship  of  Adam,  the  imputation  of  the  guilt 
of  his  first  sin  to  his  posterity,  original  sin,  the  atone- 
ment and  justification,  are  so  closely  connected,  that 
if  we  have  incorrect  views  with  regard  to  the  one,  we 
shall  err  respecting  the  others.  The  views  concern- 
ing these  doctrines  which  we  regard  as  scriptural,  and 
which  we  have  endeavoured  to  substantiate,  so  far  as 
the  design  of  the  work  would  permit,  are  all  different 
parts  of  the  same  system.  If  one  of  them  be  mate- 
rially modified  or  denied,  it  involves  a  similar  modi- 
fication or  denial  of  the  whole.  "While  men  are  dis- 
puting," says  Dr.  Bellamy,  "against  the  original 
constitution  with  Adam,''"'  they  unawares  undermine 
the  second  constitution,  which  is  the  foundation  of  all 

^  Dr.   Bellamy's   views   concerning   God's   covenant   vrith 
Adam,  original  sin,  &c.,  are  the  same  with  those  of  President 
Edwards;  from  whom  extracts  on  this  subject  have  been  given. 
— See  Ti'ue  Rdigioii  Delineated,  pp.  2G0,  271. 
13^- 


150  HUMAN   ABILITY. 

our  hopes.  Eager  to  avoid  Adam's  first  sin,  "where- 
by comes  condemnation,  they  render  of  none  effect 
Christ's  righteousness,  whereby  comes  justification." 
....  "What  remains,  therefore,  but  deism  and  infi- 
delity?" 

Truth  is  harmonious.  The  several  doctrines  of  the 
Bible,  like  the  stones  in  Solomon's  temple,  unite 
together,  without  the  use  of  an  "axe  or  hammer,"  to 
pare  down  their  edges.  But  if  one  be  rejected,  there 
is  not  only  a  vacancy  left  in  the  building,  which  no 
art  or  ingenuity  can  supply,  but  the  edifice  itself  is  in 
danger  of  falling. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

HUMAN    ABILITY,    REGENERATION,    AND     THE    INFLUENCES    OF    THE 

HOLY    SPIRIT. 

That  the  fall  of  man  has  not  released  us  from  obli- 
gation to  love  and  obey  God,  is  maintained  by  all. 
This,  however,  it  is  believed,  is  perfectly  consistent 
with  the  doctrine,  that  from  our  "original  corruption, 
we  are  utterly  indisposed,  disabled,  and  made  oppo- 
site to  all  good,  and  wholly  inclined  to  all  evil."  As 
our  inability  is  not  only  our  misfortune,  but  our  sin, 
it  can  never  destroy  moral  obligation.  Upon  these 
points  Calvinistic  writers  are  generally  agreed.  But 
as  the  subject  is  attended  with  difiiculties,  which 
some  have  been  anxious  to  avoid,  a  distinction  has 


HUMAN   ABILITY.  151 

been  resorted  to  between  natural  and  moral  inabil- 
ity ;  the  latter  of  which,  it  is  supposed,  is  the  inability 
under  which  the  sinner  lies;  and  that  he  still  pos- 
sesses natural  ability  to  do  his  duty.  By  this  it  is 
meant  that  he  merely  has  the  physical  powers,  or 
the  faculties  of  mind,  which  are  requisite  to  enable 
him  to  do  what  God  requires — but  that  his  mind  is, 
nevertheless,  wholly  disinclined  to  that  which  is 
good;  or,  in  other  words,  that  he  is  morally  unable 
to  exercise  holy  affections.  This  distinction,  it  might 
be  easily  shown,  is  not  without  foundation;  and  yet 
"when  applied  to  the  subject  of  religion,  it  is  doubted 
by  many,  whether  its  use  really  solves  any  difficul- 
ties, or  is  productive  of  any  practical  good ;  chiefly 
from  the  ambiguity  of  the  terms,  and  their  liability 
to  be  misunderstood. 

It  is  no  part  of  our  present  purpose  to  discuss 
this  question.  We  have  introduced  it  in  order  to 
prepare  the  way  for  the  observation,  that  those 
•whose  sentiments  we  are  now  considering,  retain  the 
term  natural  in  connection  with  ability;  and  thus 
appear  to  accord  with  those  who  are  in  the  habit  of 
making  the  distinction  to  which  we  have  referred; 
though  in  reality  they  occupy  very  different  ground. 
Though  when  they  speak  of  ability,  they  frequently 
annex  to  it  the  word  Tiatural,  they  seldom  speak  of 
inahilitj  at  all — but  produce  the  impression  that  the 
ability  which  they  preach  is  fully  adequate  to  enable 
the  sinner,  independently  of  divine  grace,  to  do  all 
that  God  requires. 

This  was  the  opinion  of  Dr.  Porter  concerning  Dr. 


152  HUMAN    ABILITY — DR.    BEECHER. 

Beecher's  preaching,  prior  to  1829.  In  a  letter 
addressed  to  him  which  has  been  published  in  various 
papers,  he  says,  "You  exalt  one  part  of  Calvinism, 
viz:  human  agency^  so  as  virtually  to  lose  sight  of 
its  correlate  human  dependence,  and  thus  make 
regeneration  so  much  a  result  of  means  and  instru- 
mentality, that  the  sinner  is  born  rather  '  of  blood  or 
of  the  will  of  man  than  of  God.'  " 

A  similar  opinion  has  been  formed  by  some  con- 
cerning his  "Views  in  Theology,"  published  in  1836. 
Dr.  Harvey  says  concerning  them,  "Dr.  Beecher's 
Views,  it  is  true,  have  many  shades  and  shadows  of 
orthodoxy.  The  superstructure  looks  fair  and  im- 
posing; but  the  philosophy  is  Pelagian,  and  all  the 
orthodoxy  in  his  '  Views'  is  undermined  by  a  false 
theory  of  moral  agency,  on  which  the  whole  is  found- 
ed."— Harvey  on  Moral  Agency,  p.  6.  The  follow- 
ing quotations  will  show  what  foundation  Dr.  Harvey 
had  for  this  opinion. 

Dr.  Beecher  says,  (p.  30,  31,)  "That  man  possesses 
since  the  fall  the  powers  of  agency  requisite  to  obli- 
gation, on  the  ground  of  the  possibility  of  obedience, 
is  a  matter  of  notoriety.  Not  one  of  the  powers  of 
mind  which  constituted  ability  before  the  fall  has 
been  obliterated  by  that  event.  All  that  has  ever 
been  conceived,  or  that  can  now  be  conceived,  as  en- 
tering into  the  constitution  of  a  free  agent,  capable  of 
choosing  life  or  death,  or  which  did  exist  in  Adam 
when  he  could  and  did  obey,  yet  mutable,  survived 
the  fall."  He  says,  (p.  31, 32,)  "Choice,  in  its 
very  nature,  implies  the  possibility  of  a  different  or 


REMARKS   OF   DR.    HARVEY.  153 

contrary  election  to  that  which  is  made.  There  is 
always  an  alternative  to  that  which  the  mind  decides 
on  with  the  conscious  j?o^^er  of  choosing  either.''  .... 
"The  question  of  free  will  is  not  whether  man 
chooses — this  is  notorious,  none  deny  it;  but  whether 
his  choice  is  free  as  opposed  to  a  fatal  necessity." 
Again,  (p.  35,)  "  Choice,  without  the  possibility  of 
other  or  contrary  choice,  is  the  immemorial  doctrine 
of  fatalism:"  and  further,  (p.  47,)  "This  doctrine  of 
the  natural  ability  of  choice^  commensurate  with  obli- 
gation^ has  been,  and  is,  the  received  doctrine  of  the 
universal  orthodox  church,  from  the  primitive  age 
down  to  this  day." 

The  first  of  these  propositions  speaks  without  any 
qualification  of  the  ''possibility  of  obedience,''  in  re- 
ference to  fallen  man — and  makes  this  essential  to 
obligation.  The  second  and  third  predicate  this 
possibility  of  obedience  upon  the  possession  of  a  self- 
determining  power  of  the  will,  by  which  we  can  not 
only  choose,  but  alter  our  volitions  at  pleasure.  This, 
according  to  his  view,  is  essential  to  free  agency. 
The  third  affirms  that  "this  natural  ability  of  choice," 
by  which  we  understand  him  to  mean  the  power 
which  we  naturally  possess  as  free  agents,  over  our 
volitions,  ''is  commensurate  with  obligation."  If 
these  are  the  ideas  which  he  intends  to  convey,  it  fol- 
lows, that  man  since  the  fall  possesses  all  the  powers 
which  are  requisite  to  enable  him  to  change  his  sinful 
volitions  for  those  which  are  holy :  or,  to  use  the  lan- 
guage of  Dr.  Harvey,  "that  man  possesses,  since  the 
fall,  the  powers  of  agency  requisite  to  obligation,  on 


154  HUMAN   ABILITY. 

the  ground  of  possessing  a  power  of  contrary  choice, 
by  which  he  can  recover  himself  from  perfect  sinful- 
ness to  perfect  holiness." — Harvey  on  Moral  Agency, 
pp.  80,  81.  "Natural  ability  of  choice,  commensu- 
rate with  obligation,"  says  Dr.  Harvey,  "must  mean 
something  more  than  the  mere  power  of  choice;  it 
means  natural  ability  not  only  to  do  right,  if  one 
is  disposed,  but  natural  ability  to  overcome  every 
moral  impediment.  In  other  words,  it  means  natural 
ability  to  overcome  moral  inability,  or  natural  ability 
•which  can  produce  ability  enough  to  overcome  moral 
inability.  Thus,  as  I  have  before  had  occasion  to  re- 
mark, the  great  object  is  to  render  man,  in  his  fallen 
state,  independent  of  the  grace  of  God.  To  accom- 
plish this  purpose.  Dr.  Beecher  introduces  the  extra 
power  of  contrary  choice  as  an  addition  to  the  simple 
power  of  choice,  and  which  he  deems  sufficient  to 
equal  obligation,  and  if  so,  to  bring  the  sinner  out  of 
darkness  into  light,  to  raise  him  from  death  to  life. 
Thus  Dr.  Beecher,  in  effect,  coincides  with  Pelagius, 
"who  denied  all  moral  inability,  Pelagius  takes  the 
city  by  undermining  and  sinking  the  "wall;  Dr. 
Beecher  by  building  an  embankment  which  shall 
overtop  the  wall.  One  sinks  the  wall  to  the  surface, 
the  other  raises  the  surface  to  the  wall's  top ;  and  in 
both  cases,  the  obstacle  of  moral  inability  is  annihi- 
lated."— Harvey  on  Moral  Agency,  pp.  115,  116. 

We  have  exhibited  Dr.  Beecher's  views  in  the 
above  form,  because  the  language  of  his  several  pro- 
positions is  such,  that  the  sentiments  intended  to  be 
conveyed  are  not  perfectly  obvious  upon  a  simple 


VIEWS   OF   DUFFIELD   AND   FINNEY.  155 

perusal.  The  deductions  wliich  we  have  made,  or 
which  we  have  quoted  from  Dr.  Harvey,  we  do  not 
of  course,  ascribe  to  Dr.  Beecher,  as  expressing  what 
he  believes — but  if  we  have  not  mistaken  his  views, 
they  appear  to  lead,  by  legitimate  consequence,  to 
these  conclusions — and  to  some  of  them  it  is  probable 
he  would  not  refuse  his  assent;  since  it  would  be 
going  no  further  than  has  been  expressed  by  two  or 
three  who  belong  to  the  same  school. 

Says  Mr.  Duffield — "Not  much  less  deluding  are 
the  system  and  tactics  of  those  who,  fearing  to  invade 
the  province  of  the  Spirit,  are  careful  to  remind  the 
sinner,  that  he  is  utterly  unable  by  his  own  unassisted 
powers  either  'to  believe  or  to  repent  to  the  saving  of 
his  soul.  It  might  as  truly  be  said,  that  he  cannot 
rise  and  walk,  by  his  own  unassisted  powers." — Duf- 
field on  Regeneration,  p.  542. 

Mr.  Finney's  language  is  that  *'as  God  requires 
men  to  make  themselves  a  new  heart,  on  pain  of 
eternal  death,  it  is  the  strongest  possible  evidence 
that  they  are  able  to  do  it — to  say  he  has  com- 
manded them  to  do  it,  without  telling  them  they  are 

able,  is  consummate  trifling." "If  the  sinner 

ever  has  a  new  heart,  he  must  obey  the  command  of 

the  text,  and  make  it  himself." "Sinner! 

instead  of  waiting  and  praying  for  God  to  change 
your  heart,  you  should  at  once  summon  up  your 
powers,  put  forth  the  effort,  and  change  the  gov- 
erning preferences  of  your  mind.  But  here,  some 
one  may  ask,  Can  the  carnal  mind,  which  is  enmity 
against  God,  change  itself?    I  have  already  said  that 


156  HUMAN   ABILITY. 

this  text  in  the  original,  reads,  '  The  minding  of  the 
flesh  is  enmity  against  God.'  This  minding  of  the 
flesh  then,  is  a  choice  or  preference  to  gratify  the 
flesh.  Now  it  is  indeed  absurd  to  say,  that  a  choice 
can  change  itself;  hut  it  is  not  absurd  to  say,  that  the 
agent  who  exercises  this  choice  can  change  it.  The 
sinner  that  minds  the  flesh,  can  change  his  mind, 
and  mind  God." — Sermons  on  Important  Subjects^ 
pp.  18,  87,  38. 

This  exposition  of  the  "carnal  mind"  is  a  favourite 
one  with  writers   of  this   class.     Says  Mr.   Barnes, 
"The  amount  of  his  [Paul's]  affirmation  is  simply, 
that  the  minding  of  the  fleshy  the  supreme  attention 
to  its  dictates  and  desires,  is  not  and  6annot  be  sub- 
ject to  the  law  of  God.     They  are  wholly  contradic- 
tory and   irreconcilable."  ....  "But  whether  the 
mmi  himself  might  not  obey  the  law,  whether  he  has, 
or  has  not,  ability  to  do  it,  is  a  question  w^iich  the 
Apostle  does  not  touch,  and  on   which  this  passage 
should  not  be  adduced." — Notes  on  the  Romans,  p. 
164.     In  commenting  on  the  phrase,  "neither  indeed 
can  be,"  he  repeats  the  same  sentiment  concerning 
ability  which  is  expressed  above.     Also  in  his  exposi- 
tion of  the  passage,  "  when  we  were  w^ithout  strength 
Christ  died  for  the  ungodly."     "The  remark  of  the 
Apostle  here,"  says  he,  "has  reference  only  to  the 
condition  of  the  race  before  an  atonement  was  made. 
It  does  not  pertain  to  the  question  whether  man  has 
strength  to  repent  and  to  believe,  after  an  atonement 
is  made,  which  is  a  very  dififerent  inquiry."     Though 
Mr.  Barnes  expresses  himself  with  much  more  caution 


REMARKS   OP   EDWARDS.  157 


* 


than  Messrs.  Finney  and  Duffield,  it  is  apparent  that 
he  favours  their  sentiments. 

There  is  so  striking  a  similarity  between  the  views 
of  these  men  and  those  of  Dr.  John  Taylor  of  Nor- 
wich, England,  a  Socinian,  that  it  will  be  appropriate 
to  refer  to  the  latter,  with  the  remarks  of  President 
Edwards   upon   them,   showing  what  he  thought   of 
their  tendency.     They  are  contained  in  his  work  on 
Original  Sin.     "It  will  follow,"   says  he,   "on   our 
author's  principles  [Dr.  Taylor's  principles]  not  only 
with  respect  to  infants,  but  even  adult  persons,  that 
that  redemption  is  needless^   and   Christ  is  dead  in 
vain.     Not  only  is  there  no  need  of  Christ's  redemp- 
tion in  order  to  deliverance  from  any  consequences  of 
Adams  sin,  but  also  in  order  to  perfect  freedom  from 
personal  sin,  and  all  its  evil  consequences.     Eor  God 
has  made   other   sufficient  provision  for  that,  viz.  a 
sufficient  power  and  ability^  in  all  mankind^  to  do  all 
their  duty  and  wliolly  to  avoid  sin.     Yea,  he  insists 
upon  it,  that  'when  men  have  not  sufficient  power  to 
do  their  duty,  they  have  no  duty  to  do.     We  may 
safely  and  assuredly  conclude,  (says  he,)  that  mankind 
in  all  parts  of  the  world,  have  sufficient  power  to  do 
the  duty  which  God  requires  of  them ;  and  that  he 
requires  of  them  NO  more  than  they  have  sufficient 
powers  to  do.'    And  in  another  place,  'God  has  given 
powers  EQUAL  to  the  duty  which  he  expects.'     And 
he   expresses   a  great    dislike   at   R.  R's   supposing 
'  that  our  propensities  to  evil  and  temptations  are  too 
strong  to  be  effectually  and  constantly  resisted ; 
or  that  we  are  unavoidably  sinful  IN  A  degree;  that 
14 


158  HUMAN   ABILITY. 

our  appetites  and  passions  will  be  breaking  out,  not- 
withstanding our  everlasting  watchfulness.'  These 
things  fully  imply  that  men  have  in  their  own  na- 
tural ability  sufficient  means  to  avoid  sin,  and  to 
be  perfectly  free  from  it;  and  so  from  all  the  bad 
consequences  of  it.  And  if  the  means  are  sufficient, 
then  there  is  no  need  of  more ;  and  therefore  there  is 
no  need  of  Christ's  dying  in  order  to  it.  What  Dr. 
Taylor  says,  fully  implies  that  it  would  be  unjust  in 
God  to  give  mankind  being  in  such  circumstances, 
as  that  they  would  be  more  likely  to  sin,  so  as  to  be 
exposed  to  final  misery,  than  otherwise.  Hence  then, 
■without  Christ  and  his  redemption,  and  without  any 
grace  at  all,  mere  justice  makes  sufficient  provision 
for  our  being  free  from  sin  and  misery  by  our  own 
power." 

"If  all  mankind,  in  all  parts  of  the  world,  have 
sufficient  power  to  do  their  whole  duty,  without  being 
sinful  in  any  degree,  then  they  have  sufficient  power 
to  obtain  righteousness  by  the  law :  and  then,  accord- 
ing to  the  apostle  Paul,  Christ  is  dead  in  vain.  Gal.. 
ii.  21.  '  If  righteousness  come  by  law,  Christ  is  dead 
in  vain ;' — hi/  laiu,  or  the  rule  of  right  action,  as  our 
author  explains  the  phrase.  And  according  to  the 
sense  in  which  he  explains  this  very  place,  'it  would 
have  frustrated,  or  rendered  useless,  the  grace  of  God, 
if  Christ  died  to  accomplish  what  was  or  might  have 
been  effected  by  law  itself  without  his  death.  'So 
that  it  most  clearly  follows  from  his  own  doctrine, 
that  Christ  is  dead  in  vain,  and  the  grace  of  God  is 
useless.     The  same  apostle  says.  If  there  had  been  a 


REMARKS   or   EDWARDS.  159 

law  which  COULD  have  given  life,  verily  righteousness 
should  have  been  by  the  law,  Gal.  iii.  21 ;  i.  e.  (accord- 
ing to  Dr.  Taylor's  own  sense,)  if  there  was  a  law, 
that  man,  in  his  present  state,  had  sufficient  power  to 
fulfil.  For  Dr.  Taylor  supposes  the  reason  why  the 
law  could  not  give  life,  to  be  'not  because  it  was  weak 
in  itself,  but  through  the  weakness  of  our  flesh,  and 
the  infirmity  of  human  nature  in  the  present  state.' 
But  he  says,  '  We  are  under  a  mild  dispensation  of 
GRACE  making  allowance  for  our  infirmities.'  By  our 
infirmities,  we  may,  on  good  ground,  suppose  he 
means  that  infirmity  of  human  nature,  which  he  gives 
as  the  reason  why  the  law  cannot  give  life.  But 
what  ^ra<?.e_is_there  for  making  that  allowance  for  our 
infirmities,  which  justice  itself  (according  to  his  doc- 
trine,) most  absolutely  requires,  as  he  supposes  divine 
justice  exactly  proportions  our  duty  to  our  ability  ? 

"Again,  if  it  be  said,  that  although  Christ's  re- 
demption was  not  necessary  to  preserve  men  from 
beginning  to  sin,  and  getting  into  a  course  of  sin, 
because  they  have  sufficient  power  in  themselves  to 
avoid  it;  yet  it  may  be  necessary  to  deliver  men, 
after  they  have  by  their  own  folly  brought  themselves 
under  the  dominion  of  evil  appetites  and  passions ;  I 
answer,  if  it  be  so,  that  men  need  deliverance  from 
those  habits  and  passions  which  are  become  too 
strong  for  them,  yet  that  deliverance,  on  our  author's 
principles,  would  be  no  salvation  from  sin.  Por  the 
exercise  of  passions  which  are  too  strong  for  us,  and 
which  we  cannot  overcome,  is  necessary:  and  ho 
strongly  urges,  that  a  necessary  evil  can  be  no  moral 


160  HUMAN   ABILITY. 

evil.  It  is  true  it  is  the  effect  of  evil,  as  it  is  the 
effect  of  a  bad  practice,  while  the  man  had  power  to 
have  avoided  it.  But  then,  according  to  Dr.  Taylor, 
that  evil  cause  alone  is  sin;  for  he- expressly  says, 
*  The  cause  of  every  effect  is  alone  chargeable  with 
the  effect  it  produceth,  or  which  proceedeth  from  it.' 
And  as  to  that  sin  which  was  the  cause,  the  man 
needed  no  Saviour  from  that,  having  had  sufficient 
power  in  himself  to  have  avoided  it.  So  that  it  fol- 
lows by  our  author's  scheme,  that  none  of  mankind, 
neither  infants  nor  adult  persons,  neither  the  more  or 
or  less  vicious,  neither  Jeius  nor  Gentiles,  neither 
heathens  nor  Qh7Hstians,  ever  did  or  even  could  stand 
in  any  need  of  a  Saviour ;  and  that  with  respect  to 
all,  the  truth  is,  Christ  is  dead  in  vain, 

"If  any  should  say,  although  all  mankind  in  all 
ages  have  sufficient  ability  to  do  their  whole  duty,  and 
so  may  by  their  own  power  enjoy  perfect  freedom 
from  sin,  yet  God  foresaw  that  they  would  sin,  and 
that  after  they  had  sinned  they  would  need  Christ's 
death ;  I  answer,  it  is  plain,  by  what  the  apostle  says 
in  those  places  which  were  just  now  mentioned,  (Gal. 
ii.  21,  and  iii.  21,)  that  God  would  have  esteemed  it 
needless  to  give  his  Son  to  die  for  men,  unless  there 
had  been  a  prior  impossibility  of  their  having  right- 
eousness by  any  law ;  and  that  if  there  had  been  a  law 
which  COULD  have  given  life,  this  other  way  by  the 
death  of  Christ  would  not  have  been  provided.  And 
this  appears  agreeable  to  our  author's  own  sense  of 
things,  by  his  words  which  have  been  cited,  wherein 
he  says,  '  It  would  have  fkustiiated  or  rendered  use- 


REMARKS   OF  EDWARDS.  161 

LESS  the  grace  of  God,  if  Christ  died  to  accomplish 
■what  was  or  might  have  been  effected  by  law  itself, 
without  his  death.'  " 

The   new  views   concerning   human    ability   have 
an   exact   counterpart   in   the    description   which   is 
given  by  different  writers  of  this  school,  of  the  work 
of  regeneration,  and  the  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
According  to  them,  regeneration  consists  in  the  mere 
change  of  the  governing  purpose  or  preference  of  the 
soul — by  which  the  sinner  renounces  the  world  as  the 
supreme  object  of  pursuit,  and  makes  choice  of  God 
and  heavenly  things.     Prompted  by  self-love,  or  in 
other  words,  by  a  constitutional  desire  for  happiness, 
which  is  neither  sinful  nor  holy,  and  the  selfish  prin- 
ciple in  his  heart  being  suspended,  he  enters  upon  a 
serious  consideration  and  comparison  of  the  various 
objects  of  happiness,  until  he  discovers  the  infinite 
superiority  of  God  and  divine  things  to  every  other 
object.      Then,  by  "desperate  efforts,"  he  fixes  his 
heart  upon  them,  and  thus  becomes  a  Christian.     The 
part  which  the  Holy  Spirit  performs  in  the  work  is, 
to  present  truth  powerfully  before  the  mind  in  the 
form  of  motives,  like  an  advocate  arguing  a  cause  be- 
fore a  jury;  or  as  one  man  influences  and  persuades 
another  in  the  common  affairs  of  life;  though  with 
infinitely  greater  skill  and  force  than  can  be  employed 
by  any  human  agent.     His  attention  is  thus  arrested 
— he  revolves  in  his  mind  the  points  at  issue — and  at 
length  being  convinced  where  his  true  interest  lies, 
he  is  prevailed  upon  by  the  moral  suasion  of  the  Spi- 
rit, to  change  the  governing  purpose  or  preference  of 
14* 


162  REGENERATION — DR.    TAYLOR. 

his   mind,   and  to  choose   God  as  his  supreme  por- 
tion. 

The  language  of  Dr.  Taylor  is  as  follows:  "AYe 
proceed  to  say  then,  that  before  the  act  of  the  will  or 
heart  in  which  the  sinner  first  prefers  God  to  any 
other  object,  the  object  of  the  preference  must  be 
viewed  or  estimated  as  the  greatest  good.  Before 
the  object  can  be  viewed  as  the  greatest  good,  it 
must  be  compared  with  other  objects,  as  both  are 
sources  or  means  of  good.  Before  this  act  of  com- 
paring, there  must  be  an  act  dictated  not  by  selfish- 
ness but  self-love,  in  which  the  mind  determines  to 
direct  its  thoughts  to  the  objects  for  the  sake  of  con- 
sidering their  relative  value,  of  forming  a  judgment 
respecting  it;  and  of  choosing  one  or  the  other  as 
the  chief  good." — Christian  Spectator ,  1829,  pp.  19, 
20. 

"Divine  truth  does  not  become  a  means  to  this 
end,  until  the  selfish  principle  so  long  cherished  in 
the  heart  is  suspended ;  and  the  mind  is  left  to  the 
control  of  that  constitutional  desire  of  happiness 
which  is  an  original  principle  of  our  nature.  Then  it 
is,  we  apprehend,  that  God  and  the  world  are  contem- 
plated by  the  mind  as  objects  of  choice,  substantially 
as  they  would  be  by  a  being  who  had  just  entered  on 
existence,  and  who  was  called  upon  for  the  first  time 
to  select  the  one  or  the  other  as  his  supreme  good." 
—  Christian  Spectator,  1829,  p.  210. 

"Now  we  readily  concede  that  sinners  never  use 
the  means  of  regeneration  with  a  holy  heart,  nor 
with  an  unholy  or  sinful  heart.     But  does  it  there- 


VIEWS  OF  FINNEY  AND  DUFFIELD.  163 

fore  follow  that  they  never  use  them  with  any  heart 
at  all?  What  is  that  heart  with  which  God  in  his 
law  requires  sinners  to  love  him?  Surely  not  a 
heart  which  is  holy  before  they  love  him.  Still  less 
with  a  sinful  heart ;  and  yet  he  requires  them  to  love 
him  with  some  heart,  even  their  heart.  Is  this  no 
heart  at  all?  We  think  on  the  contrary  it  is  a  real 
heart,  a  heart  with  which  sinners  can  love  God,  even 
without  the  grace  of  the  Spirit^  and  certainly  with 
it." — Christian  Spectator,  1830,  pp.  149,  150. 

Concerning  the  nature  of  the  Spirit's  agency,  we 
believe  Dr.  Taylor  has  not  published  his  views.  But 
the  author  of  ''Letters  on  the  New-Haven  Theology" 
informs  us  that  his  sentiments  correspond  with  those 
of  Mr.  Finney. 

Mr.  Finney  says,  "The  Spirit  pours  the  expostula- 
tion home  with  such  power,  that  the  sinner  turns. 
Now,  in  speaking  of  this  change,  it  is  perfectly 
proper  to  say,  that  the  Spirit  turned  him,  just  as  you 
would  say  of  a  man  who  had  persuaded  another  to 
change  his  mind  on  the  subject  of  politics,  that  he 

had  converted  him  and  brought  him  over." 

"He  does  not  act  by  direct  physical  contact  upon 
the  mind,  but  he  uses  the  truth  as  his  sword  to  pierce 
the  sinner;  and  the  motives  presented  in  the  gospel 
are  the  instruments  he  uses  to  change  the  sinner's 
heart.  Some  have  doubted  this,  and  supposed  that 
it  is  equivalent  to  denying  the  Spirit's  agency  alto- 
gether to  maintain  that  he  converts  sinners  by  mo- 
tives.    Others  have  denied  the  possibility  of  chang- 


164  REGENERATION. 

ing  the  heart  by  motives.  But  did  not  the  serpent 
change  Adam's  heart  by  motives?  and  cannot  the 
Spirit  of  God  with  infinitely  higher  motives  exert  as 
great  power  over  mind  as  he  can?"  ....  "From 
these  remarks  it  is  easy  to  answer  the  question  some- 
times put  by  individuals  who  seem  to  be  entirely  in 
the  dark  on  this  subject,  whether  in  converting  the 
soul  the  Spirit  acts  directly  on  the  mind,  or  on  the 
truth.  This  is  the  same  nonsense  as  if  you  should 
ask  whether  an  earthly  advocate  who  had  gained  his 
cause,  did  it  by  acting  directly  and  physically  on  the 

jury  or  on  his  argument." "The  power  which 

God  exerts  in  the  conversion  of  a  soul  is  moral 
power ;  it  is  that  kind  of  power  by  which  a  statesman 
sways  the  mind  of  a  senate;  or  by  which  an  advocate 
moves  and  bows  the  heart  of  a  jury." — Sermons  on 
Imiportant  Subjects^  pp.  21,  27,  28,  30. 

As  to  what  regeneration  consists  in,  Mr.  Finney 
observes:  "A  change  of  heart,  then,  consists  in 
changing  the  controlling  preference  of  the  mind  in 
regard  to  the  end  of  pursuit.  The  selfish  heart  is  a 
preference  of  self-interest  to  the  glory  of  God  and 
the  interests  of  his  kingdom.  A  new  heart  consists 
in  a  preference  of  the  glory  of  God  and  the  interests 
of  his  kingdom  to  one's  own  happiness."  .  .  .  "It  is 
a  change  in  the  choice  of  a  Supreme  Ruler.'' — Ihid. 
pp.  9,  10.  In  describing  the  process  by  which  the 
sinner  effects  this  change,  he  occupies  nearly  a  whole 
sermon,  which  we  cannot  of  course,  with  propriety, 
transfer  to  these  pages.  It  corresponds  substantially 
with  the  views  already  given  from  Dr.  Taylor. 


VIEWS   OP   MR.    DUFFIELD.  165 

Mr.  Duffield's  account  of  regeneration  is  as  fol- 
lows: "It  is  going  altogether  beyond  the  analogy  in 
the  case,  to  assert  that  there  is  in  regeneration  the 
injection,  infusion,  or  implantation,  or  creation  of  a 
new  "principle  of  spiritual  life.'"  ....  "Whenever 
the  Spirit  of  God  excites  and  secures  in  the  mind 
and  heart  of  man  those  acts  and  emotions  which  are 
appropriate  to  his  rational  soul,  i.  e.  when  they  are 
directed  to  God,  as  his  supreme  good  and  chief  end, 
he  is  renewed,  regenerated,  born  again." — WorJc  on 
Jlegeneration,  pp.  202,  203,  204.  But  how  does  the 
Spirit  produce  this  result?"  According  to  him  it  is 
done  by  moral  suasion.  He  has  two  whole  chapters, 
occupying  thirty-five  pages,  entitled  "The  Moral 
Suasion  of  the  Spirit."  In  one  of  these  he  illustrates 
liis  views  of  the  nature  of  the  Spirit's  agency  by  the 
power  of  persuasion  exerted  by  one  man  over  another, 
and  the  greater  success  which  a  man  of  "practical 
knowledge  and  tact  and  particular  acquaintance  with 
dispositions,"  &c.  has  above  one  who  is  less  skilful. 
"Shall  we  suppose,  (says  he,)  that  God  cannot  do 
■with  sinners  in  reference  to  himself  what  one  man 
has  done  with  another  ? — that  a  physical  efficiency  is 
necessary  to  make  the  sinner  willing  to  confide  in 
him  and  repent  of  his  rebellion  ?  To  suppose  this,  is 
in  fact  to  attribute  a  moral  influence  to  a  man  more 
potent  than  that  which,  in  such  a  case,  it  would  be 
requisite  God  should  exert !  It  would  in  efi'ect  be  to 
say  that  man  can  subdue  Jiis  foe,  and  by  an  appro- 
priate moral  influence  convert  him  into  a  friend ;  but 


166  REGENERATION. 

that  God  cannot  convert  Ms  enemy,  and  bring  him 
to  believe,  except  he  puts  forth  his  physical  power 
and  literally  creates  him  over  again."  Pp.  492, 
493.* 

During  the  progress  of  the  discussion  concerning  ' 
the  New  Theology,  it  was  alleged  by  some,  by  way  of 
objection  to  the  new  theory,  that  it  involved  the 
principle  that  regeneration  is  not  an  instantaneous 
but  a  gradual  work.  This  allegation,  so  far  as  I 
recollect,  was  for  a  time  neither  admitted  nor  denied. 
But  recently  the  doctrine  of  gradual  regeneration 
has  been  avowed.  Mr.  Gilbert,t  of  Wilmington, 
Delaware,  published  in  the  Philadel'pMan  in  1833,  a 
number  of  communications  on  this  subject;  which 
were  afterwards  revised  and  enlarged,  and  in  1836, 
at  the  "earnest  request"  of  the  "members  of  the 
Ministers'  Meeting  of  New  Castle  County,  Dela- 
ware," were  published  in  a  pamphlet  form,  under  the 
title  of  "Moral  Suasion ;  or  Regeneration  not  a  Mira- 

*  This  power  of  moral  suasion  is  the  kind  of  influence 
referred  to  by  a  certain  preacher  who  said,  *'If  I  were  as  elo- 
quent as  the  IIolj  Ghost  I  could  convert  sinners  as  well  as 
He.'^  In  the  Natio7ial  Preaclier  for  February  1832,  a  sermon 
furnished  by  Dr.  Grifl&n  commences  by  quoting  the  above 
remark.  It  being;  attributed  by  some  to  a  Presbyterian  minis- 
ter of  my  acquaintance,  I  asked  him  whether  he  had  ever 
used  this  expression.  He  replied  that  he  had,  and  vindicated 
its  correctness;  though  he  said  it  did  not  appear  in  the 
connection  in  which  he  used  it,  as  it  does  when  standing  by 

itself. 

t  In  the  organization  of  the  New-school  General  Assembly 
in  May,  1838,  Mr.  Gilbert  was  chosen  pcrmahent  clerk. 


VIEWS   OF    MR.    GILBERT.  1G7 

cle,"  &c.  It  is  dedicated  to  the  members  of  the 
Ministers'  Meeting,  and  to  the  elders  of  the  churches 
under  their  pastoral  charge.  These  facts  appear  to 
show  that  Mr.  Gilbert's  views  accord  with  the  senti- 
ments of  the  other  ministers  with  whom  he  is  asso- 
ciated in  that  State,  and  that  they  desire  to  have 
them  prevail  throughout  their  churches. 

Mr.  Gilbert  affirms  that  "  the  Bible  knows  no  in- 
stantaneous regeneration;  this  is  a  refinement  of  the- 
ological philosophers.  Being  born  again,  and  chang- 
ing the  heart  of  stone  to  a  heart  of  flesh,  is  di,  gradual 
process;  although  under  some  circumstances  it  may 
be  a  very  sJiort  one,''  The  remark  of  Dr.  Griffin, 
that  "motives  can  never  change  an  unholy  temper,'" 
&c.  he  calls  "strange  philosophy;  flying  not  only  in 
the  face  of  Scripture,  but  of  every  day  matters  of 
fact."  "How  often,"  (says  he,)  "  do  we  see  enmity  to 
a  neighbour,  corrected,  moderated,  subdued  and  turned 
to  love,  by  proper  motives  presented  to  the  mind  ? 
And  enmity  to  God  is  restrained  and  subdued  in  the 
same  manner."  These  motives,  he  maintains,  are 
presented  in  the  latter  case  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  who 
convicts,  converts,  and  sanctifies,  "  by  the  influence 
of  truth  presented  to  the  mind  and  in  no  other  way." 
In  one  place,  he  says:  '''Regeneration  cannot  he 
wrought  without  the  truth.  It  is  in  view  of  the 
truth,  through  the  truth,  and  by  the  truth,  the  soul 
is  convicted,  converted,  and  sanctified  from  begin- 
ning to  end." 

To  illustrate  his  views  he  has  furnished  a  diagram 
consisting  of  an  arc  of  a  circle,  in  the  centre  of  which 


168  REGENERATION. 

he  has  placed  the  Holy  Spirit.  From  this  centre  are 
drawn  straight  lines  to  various  points  in  the  arc,  repre- 
senting truth  as  employed  by  the  Spirit.  A  sinner 
pursuing  his  way  to  hell  is  represented  as  being  met  by 
one  of  these  lines,  through  the  influence  of  which  ho 
is  persuaded  to  diverge  a  little  from  the  path  he  was 
pursuing,  and  proceeding  at  an  angle  of  about  forty- 
five  degrees,  he  passes  gradually  through  the  several 
steps  of  conviction,  regeneration,  and  sanctification, 
describing  in  his  progress  the  arc  of  the  circle;  until 
arriving  at  a  point  directly  opposite  from  where  he 
started,  he  becomes  perfect  and  ascends  to  heaven. 

That  the  reader  may  see  for  himself  this  new  and 
improved  method  of  regeneration  by  attraction,  we 
will  give  the  diagram  with  the  author's  explanation.* 
We  ought  to  remark,  however,  that  he  uses  the  terms 
co7ivictio7i  and  sanctification  in  accommodation  to 
the  views  and  language  of  others.  According  to  his 
own  views  the  whole  process  from  beginning  to  end 
belongs  to  the  work  of  regeneration.  "By  regenera- 
tion,'" says  he,  "is  understood  the  divine  agency  in 
the  ivliole  'process  of  a  sinner's  conviction  and  conver- 
sion ;  but  in  this  discussion  I  use  it  as  it  is  used  by 
Dr.  Griffin,  Mr.  Smith  and  others,  in  the  restricted 
sense  as  distinguished  from  previous  conviction  and 
subsequent  sanctification."  "It  [the  Bible]  knows 
of  no  regeneration  as  distinct  from  conviction  and  the 
beo'innino;  of  sanctification." 

■^  As  a  matter  of  taste  we  would  exclude  this  diagram  from 
our  pages — but  other  considerations  which  we  regard  as  para- 
mount, induce  us  to  insert  it. 


VIEWS    OF    MR.    GILBERT. 


1G9 


Truth.'   C 


Heaven. 
G 


o 

C4 


THE   author's   explanation, 

"Let  the  semicircle,  ABC,  represent  the  sin- 
ner's course  from  sin  to  holiness.  Let  D  E  repre- 
sent the  road  to  hell,  in  which  the  impenitent  sinner 
is  found  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  influenced  at  the 
point  A  by  a  new  presentation  of  truth,  to  stop  and 
turn  gradually  from  his  downward  course,  through 
the  curve  of  conviction,  towards  the  point  B  when 
his  conviction  becoming  perfect  and  irresistible,  he 
yields  and  turns  from  his  downward  course,  through 
the  process  of  sanctification,  until  at  C  (or  at  death,) 
becoming  perfect,  he  flies  ofi",  if  you  please,  in  a  tan- 
gent, to  heaven.  Till  he  reaches  the  point  B  though 
turning  gradually  from  the  more  direct  road  to  hell, 
he  is  still  in  the  downward  course,  and  should  the 
15 


170        REGENERATION — NEW  THEOLOGY. 

Spirit  let  go  of  him,  at  any  point,  he  flies  off,  by  his 
own  centrifugal  force,  in  a  moment  towards  perdi- 
tion. The  'point  B  represents  what  these  writers 
call  'Regeneration.' " 

"  The  Holy  Spirit,  like  the  sun  in  the  centre,  is' 
the  source  of  all  right  motion;  and  the  power  by 
which  he  attracts  or  influences  the  sinner,  is  the 
power  of  truth,  or  moral  motive;  by  which  the  moral 
agent  is  checked  at  A,  and  moved  and  controlled 
through  the  whole  course  from  A  to  C.  It  is  under- 
stood, of  course,  that  the  whole  process  may  be  longer 
or  shorter,  according  to  circumstances;  may  begin 
and  be  perfected,  as  with  the  thief  on  the  cross,  in  a 
single  day;  or  as  in  the  case  of  Methuselah,  may 
occupy  nine  hundred  or  one  thousand  years.  Con- 
viction, also,  may  be  short,  and  sanctification  long, 
or  the  reverse.  But  conviction  must,  from  the  nature 
of  the  case,  precede  regeneration,  or  regeneration 
cannot  be  a  rational  change.  A  physical  change 
may  take  place  without  conviction ;  but  physical  re- 
generation is  a  thing  which  I  cannot  comprehend, 
any  more  than  physical  conviction  or  physical  sanc- 
tification. The  doctrine  of  the  moral  suasionists  is, 
that  the  influence  which  convicts,  also  regenerates 
and  sanctifies.  That  the  same  power  which  moves 
the  sinner  from  A  to  B  moves  him  through  the 
point  B  and  along  the  line  to  C.  And  that  the  whole 
change  is  wrought  through  appropriate  means,  with- 
out a  miracle,  by  the  Holy  Spirit." 

Agreeably  to  these  ideas  of  gradual  progress  from 
the  first  point  to  the  last,  he  says;  " There  is  very  lit- 


MR.  gilbert's  views.  171 

tie  distinction  between  the  last  degree  of  sin  and  the 
lowest  degree  of  holiness;  between  the  last  exercise 
of  an  unconverted  and  the  first  of  a  converted  man ; 
between  the  last  feeble  struggle  of  selfishness  and  the 
first  feeble  exercise  of  love."  ....  "There  is  a 
great  difference  between  supreme  selfishness  and  su- 
preme love  iyi  their  extremes;  but  between  the  last 
feeble  influence  of  selfishness  and  the  first  feeble  ex- 
ercise of  love  to  God,  the  diff"erence  is  as  impercepti- 
ble, as  between  the  adjacent  sides  of  the  equatorial 
line.''  ....  "The  point  B  on  the  diagram  repre- 
sents the  transition  line.  And  it  may  be  asked,  Is 
it  not  an  important  one  ?  I  answer,  Yes.  Important 
on  many  accounts,  but  not  because  of  any  special  in- 
fluence used  then,  but  like  the  equator,  as  a  measure 
of  relative  progress,  and  as  the  era  of  a  great  change 
in  all  our  moral  relations  and  circumstances.  Like 
the  equatorial  line,  however,  it  is  in  itself  of  no  con- 
sequence at  all." 

If  this  were  not  a  subject  too  serious  for  ridicule, 
Mr. Gilbert  might  be  successfully  assailed  by  this  wea- 
pon. He  has  fairly  exposed  himself  to  this  mode  of 
attack.  But  if  I  possessed  a  talant  for  the  humorous, 
and  were  disposed  to  indulge  in  it,  I  feel  too  much 
shocked  at  his  method  of  illustration  to  treat  it  with 
ridicule.  He  appears  to  have  felt  himself,  that  he 
would  run  "the  risk  of  being  counted  very  presump- 
tuous;" and  I  doubt  not  he  was  correct  in  his  appre- 
hensions. A  majority  of  his  readers,  it  seems  to  me, 
(unless  they  belong  to  a  particular  class)  will  feel 
that   he   has  "trodden    on   holy   ground,"    without 


172        REGENERATION — NEW  THEOLOGY. 

'Haking  his  slices  from  off  his  feet;"  that  he  has  "put 
forth  his  hand  and  touched  the  ark  of  God,"  with- 
out "sanctifying  himself;"  or  in  other  words,  that  he 
has  so  presented  the  subject,  as  to  make  him  appear 
almost  profane. 

This  very  circumstance,  however,  serves  to  show 
the  fallacy  of  these  new  doctrines.  Mr.  Gilbert 
uses  no  irreverent  language — he  does  not  caricature 
the  New  Theology.  The  views  expressed  by  dif- 
ferent writers  as  quoted  in  the  present  chapter,  if 
carried  out  to  their  full  extent,  and  illustrated  by  a 
diagram,  could  not  perhaps  be  exhibited  more  accu- 
rately than  by  that  which  has  been  presented.  But 
a  description  given  in  words,  which  have  often  an 
equivocal  or  doubtful  import,  produces  not  only  a 
less  vivid,  but  a  less  accurate  impression  than  that 
which  is  made  by  a  figure  faithfully  drawn  and  pre- 
sented to  the  eye.  This  remark  is  true  not  only  in 
reference  to  landscapes,  &c.,  but  to  a  certain  extent 
in  regard  to  moral  and  religious  truth.  Mr.  Gilbert 
has  shown  by  his  diagram,  that  it  is  capable  of  being 
employed  in  the  present  instance;  and  possibly  it 
may  be  of  service  to  the  cause  of  truth,  by  showing 
in  a  more  striking  manner  than  can  be  exhibited  by 
quoting  their  language,  the  dangerous  extremes  to 
which  those  men  are  tending.  Give  not  only  words 
but  visibility  to  their  doctrines — let  them  be  seen  as 
well  as  heard — and  they  will  arouse  the  feelings  of 
many  who  have  not  before  been  seriously  alarmed. 


HUMAN   ABILITY.  173 


CHAPTER  VIIL 

HUMAN    ABILITY,    REGENERATION,  &C.,  CONTINUED    FROM    THE  PRE- 
CEDING   CHAPTER. 

We  observed  in  chapter  fifth  that  the  New  Theology 
concerning  the- nature  of  sin  and  holiness,  viz:  that 
they  consist  in  acts,  involves  a  new  theory  of  regen- 
eration. What  this  theory  is  may  be  learned  from 
the  statements  made  in  the  preceding  chapter.  It  is 
the  following :  That  in  regeneration  no  principle  of 
holiness  is  implanted  in  the  soul,  prior  to  the  exercise 
of  holy  acts,  from  which  principle,  or  "•  moral  state  of 
the  soul,"  those  acts  proceed;  but  that  the  whole 
change  consists  in  the  acts  of  the  soul  itself;  which 
from  having  been  sinful  now  become  holy.  A  pre- 
vious holy  relish  or  taste,  which,  according  to  the  old 
doctrine,  is  essential  in  order  to  give  to  these  acts  a 
holy  character,  is  regarded  by  these  new  system- 
makers,  as  unphilosophical  and  absurd;  involving 
what  they  term  physical  regeneration,  passivity,  &c. 

If  by  physical  regeneration  is  meant  a  mechanical 
change  in  the  substance  of  the  soul,  it  forms  no  part 
of  the  Old  Theology.  But  if  it  mean  a  direct 
agency  of  the  Spirit  upon  the  soul,  by  which  its  fac- 
ulties are  so  renewed,  that  it  receives  the  principles 
of  a  new  and  holy  life,  and  therefore  may  be  properly 
said  to  possess  a  new  nature,  it  is  what  I  understand 
to  be  the  true  doctrine.  ''  The  scriptural  representa- 
tions of  conversion,  (says  President  Edwards,)  strong- 
15* 


174        REGENERATION — OLD  THEOLOGY. 

ly  imply  and  signify  a  change  of  nature;  such  as 
being  horn  again;  becoming  new  creatures;  rising 
from  the  dead;  being  renewed  in  the  spirit  of  the 
mind;  dying  to  sin,  and  living  to  righteousness ; 
putting  off  the  old  man  and  puttiyig  on  the  new 
man;  being  ingrafted  into  a  neiv  stock;  having  a 
divine    seed   implanted    in    the    heart;    being    made 

partakers    of  the    divine   nature,''  ^c "He 

[God]  gives  his  Spirit  to  be  united  to  the  faculties  of 
the  soul  and  to  dwell  there  as  a  principle  of  spiritual 
life  and  activity.  He  not  only  actuates  the  soul,  but 
he  abides  in  it.  The  mind  thus  endued  with  grace  is 
possessed  of  a  new  nature." — Edtvards  on  the  Affec- 
tions. 

That  the  soul  is  passive  in  regeneration,  is  the  doc- 
trine of  our  standards — and  it  necessarily  results 
from  the  preceding  view  concerning  the  nature  of 
the  change.  In  the  chapter  on  Eifectual  Calling, 
both  are  presented  in  connection  with  each  other. 
The  change  itself  is  declared  to  consist  in  "  enlighten- 
ing the  minds  [the  minds  of  those  whom  he  effectually 
calls]  spiritually  and  savingly,  to  understand  the 
things  of  God,  taking  away  their  heart  of  stone,  and 
giving  unto  them  a  heart  of  flesh;  renewing  their 
wills,  &c.  It  is  then  added,  in  the  next  section, 
"  This  effectual  call  is  of  God's  free  and  special  grace 
alone,  not  from  anything  at  all  foreseen  in  man,  who 
is  altogether  passive  therein,  until  being  quickened 
and  renewed  by  the  Holy  Spirit,"  &c.  The  former 
part  of  this  quotation  exhibits  the  implantation  of  a 
holy  principle,  or  the  change  of  our  natures,  by  con- 


DOCTRINE   OP   OUR   STANDARDS.  175 

ferring  spiritual  illumination,  removing  the  heart  of 
stone  and  giving  a  heart  of  flesh,  and  by  renewing 
the  "will.  The  latter  affirms  that  this  new  nature  was 
not  imparted  to  us  by  our  own  agency,  but  by  God, 
who  works  upon  us  by  his  Holy  Spirit,  to  quicken 
and  renew  us ;  and  that  we  must  of  course,  as  to  this 
particular  point  in  the  history  of  the  change,  be  the 
passive  recipients  of  divine  grace — not  bringing  it 
about  by  our  own  acts,  but  being  acted  upon  by  the 
renovating  power  of  God. 

This  doctrine,  however,  does  not  imply  that  we  are 
not  to  be  active  beforehand  in  the  diligent  use  of  the 
means  of  grace — nor  that  we  are  inactive  at  the  time, 
with  respect  to  the  effects  of  the  change.  Simul- 
taneously with  this  change,  and  as  the  immediate  con- 
sequence of  it,  the  sinner  is  "  persuaded  and  enabled 
to  embrace  Jesus  Christ,  as  he  is  freely  offered  to  him 
in  the  gospel."  In  this  he  is  not  passive,  but  active. 
When  God  "by  his  almighty  power  determines  the 
sinner  to  that  which  is  good,"  or  in  other  words,  gives 
him  an  apprehension  of  the  excellence  of  divine  things, 
and  of  the  all-sufficiency  of  Christ  as  his  Saviour,  and 
thus  "effectually  draws"  him  to  Christ,  he  comes,  not 
reluctantly,  but  "most  freely,  being  made  willing  by 
his  grace."  Regeneration,  or  the  implanting  of  a 
holy  principle,  is  the  cause ;  and  our  conversion,  or 
turning  to  God,  is  the  effect.  In  the  former  we  are 
passive,  in  the  latter  active.  Though  in  the  order  of 
time  they  are  simultaneous,  in  the  order  of  nature 
the  former  is  the  antecedent,  the  latter  the  conse- 
quent; just  as  breathing,  though  simultaneous  with 


176  REGENERATION — DR.    COX. 

the  existence  of  life,  is  nevertheless  the  effect  of  it, 
and  would  never  occur,  unless  life  had  been  previously 
communicated. 

Dr.  Cox,  who  does  not  appear  to  have  adopted  "all 
the  principles  of  the  New  Theology,  has  expressed 
himself  on  the  subject  of  regeneration  in  a  manner 
very  different  from  what  has  been  customary  among 
Calvinistic  writers.*  To  the  doctrine  that  "  God 
creates  or  inserts  some  holy  principle  in  us,  which 
constitutes  regeneration,  and  in  which  we  are  entirely 
passive,  but  that  thereafter  we  actively  do  our  duty," 
he  strongly  objects,  and  says  "it  can  command  the 
confidence  of  no  well  disciplined  mind."  He  adds, 
it  is  true,  "  till  we  have  both  a  definition  of  what  is 
meant  by  holy  principle,  and  a  demonstration  of  its 
existence,"  &c. ;  and  he  wishes  to  have  it  understood 
that  he  does  not  object  to  its  use,  if  explained  in  a 
particular  way — but  the  doctrine,  as  it  has  been  com- 
monly received,  he  does  not  embrace.  In  his  letter 
to  the  conductors  of  the  Biblical  Repertory,  in  reply 
to  their  review  of  his  sermon,  he  asks,  "Is  not  a 
Christian  active  in  all  his  moral  relations?  In  be- 
lieving and  obeying  God?  Certainly  active  in  the 
total  progress  of  religion,  in  the  soul  and  life :  then 
why  not  also  in  its  rise?      If   active  progressively, 

*  Since  the  pubhcation  of  the  first  edition,  Dr.  Cox  has  pub- 
lished a  series  of  numbers  in  the  New  York  Evangelist,  enti- 
tled "The  Hexagon,"  in  which  he  has  discussed  at  length 
several  important  points  of  difference  between  the  Old  and  New 
Schools,  and  sided  strongly  with  the  latter,  maintaining  their 
particular  views  of  doctrine. 


REGENERATION — DR.    COX.  177 

then  why  not  initially  too  ?  If  active  in  the  work  of 
sanctification,  why  not  in  the  whole  of  it,  in  its  com- 
mencement as  well  as  its  continuance ;  in  regenera- 
tion as  well  as  sanctification  ?  How  is  a  man  regene- 
rated^ hut  as  he  believes  and  obeys  the  gospel?  Is  he 
regenerated  before  he  does  this  ?  Is  he  more  depen- 
dent in  regeneration  one  whit  than  in  sanctification?" 
What  he  terms  the  passivity  doctrine,  or  the  doctrine 
of  passive  regeneration,  he  explicitly  and  freely  dis- 
avows. 

The  remarks  of  the  editors  of  the  Repertory,  in 
their  review  of  his  sermon,  are  so  much  in  point,  that 
we  shall  transcribe  a  paragraph  of  considerable  length, 
in  the  place  of  any  further  observations  of  ours  upon 
this  subject. 

"As  to  the  point  which  Dr.  Cox  thinks  so  *  intrin- 
sically absurd,'  and  about  which  he  says  so  much, 
whether  a  man  is  passive  in  regeneration,  it  will  be 
seen  that,  for  its  own  sake,  it  does  not  merit  a  mo- 
ment's discussion.  It  depends  entirely  on  the  pre- 
vious question.  If  regeneration  be  that  act  of  the 
soul  by  which  it  chooses  God  for  its  portion,  there  is 
an  end  of  all  debate  on  the  subject.  For  no  one  will 
maintain  that  the  soul  is  passive  in  acting.  But  if 
there  be  any  change  in  the  moral  state  of  the  soul, 
prior  to  its  turning  unto  God,  then  it  is  proper  to  say, 
that  the  soul  is  passive  as  to  that  particular  point; 
that  is,  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  the  author,  and  the 
soul  the  subject  of  the  change.  For  all  that  is  meant 
by  the  soul's  being  passive,  is,  that  it  is  not  the  agent 
of  the  change  in  question.    Its  immediate  and  delight- 


178  REGENERATION — BIBLICAL   REPERTORY. 

ful  turning  unto  God  is  its  own  act;  the  state  of  mind 
which  leads  to  this  act  is  produced  directly  by  the  Spirit 
of  God.  The  whole  question  is,  whether  any  such  an- 
terior change  is  necessary;  whether  a  soul  polluted 
and  degraded  by  sin,  or  in  Scripture  language,  carnal, 
needs  any  change  in  its  moral  taste  before  it  can  be- 
hold the  loveliness  of  the  divine  character.  Por  that 
this  view  must  precede  the  exercise  of  affection,  wo 
presume  will  not  be  denied.  If  this  point  be  decided, 
the  propriety  of  using  the  word  passive  to  denote  that 
the  soul  is  the  subject  and  not  the  agent  of  the  change 
in  question,  need  not  give  us  much  trouble.  Sure  it 
is  that  this  change  is  in  Scripture  always  referred  to 
the  Holy  Spirit.  It  is  the  soul  that  repents,  believes, 
hopes  and  fears ;  but  it  is  the  Holy  Spirit  that  rege- 
nerates. He  is  the  author  of  our  faith  and  repent- 
ance by  inducing  us  to  act,  but  no  man  regenerates 
himself.  The  soul,  although  essentially  active,  is  still 
capable  of  being  acted  upon.  It  receives  impressions 
from  sensible  objects,  from  other  spirits,  and  from  the 
Holy  Ghost.  In  every  sensation,  there  is  an  impres- 
sion made  by  some  external  object,  and  the  immediate 
knowledge  which  the  mind  takes  of  the  impression. 
As  to  the  first  point,  it  is  passive,  or  the  subject ;  as 
to  the  second,  it  is  active,  or  the  agent.  These  two 
are  indeed  inseparably  connected,  and  so  are  regene- 
ration and  conversion And  if  the 

Holy  Spirit  does  make  such  an  impression  on  the 
mind,  or  exert  such  an  influence  as  induces  it  imme- 
diately to  turn  to  God,  then  it  is  correct  to  say  that 
it  is  passive  in  regeneration,  though  active  in  conver- 


REGENERATION   INSTANTANEOUS.  179 

sion.  However,  this  is  a  very  subordinate  point ;  the 
main  question  is,  whether  there  is  not  a  holy  *  relish,* 
taste,  or  principle  produced  in  the  soul  prior,  in  the 
order  of  nature,  to  any  holy  act  of  the  soul  itself.  If 
Dr.  Cox  can  show  this  to  be  'intrinsically  absurd,'  we 
shall  give  up  the  question  of  *  passivity'  without  a  mo- 
ment's demur.  To  relinquish  the  other  point,  how- 
ever, will  cost  us  a  painful  struggle.  It  will  be  giving 
up  the  main  point  in  debate  between  the  friends  and 
opposers  of  the  doctrine  of  grace  from  Augustine  to 
the  present  day.  It  will  be  the  renunciation  of  what 
Calvinists,  old  and  new,  have  believed  to  be  the  scrip- 
tural doctrine  of  original  righteousness,  original  sin, 
and  efficacious  grace.  It  will  be  the  rejection  of  that 
whole  system  of  mingled  sovereignty  and  love  which 
has  been  the  foundation,  for  ages,  of  so  many  hopes, 
and  of  so  much  blessedness  to  the  people  of  God." 

We  mentioned  in  the  last  chapter  that  the  New 
Theology  involves  the  doctrine  of  gradual  regenera- 
tion ;  and  we  quoted  from  Mr.  Gilbert's  pamphlet  to 
show  that  this  sentiment  is  now  avowed  by  some  of 
the  advocates  of  the  new  system.  On  this  point  Dr. 
Griffin  remarks,  "The  evidence  of  the  change  maybe 
earlier  or  later  in  its  appearance,  and  more  or  less 
rapid  in  its  developments,  but  the  change  itself  is 
always  instantaneous.  Is  not  such  an  idea  more  than 
implied  in  the  text?  [Ezek.  xi.  19.]  What  is  the 
blessing  promised  ?  Not  the  gradual  improvement  of 
an  o/c^  temper,  but  "a  7^g^^  spirit ;" — "the  stony  heart" 
not  softened  hy  degrees  into  flesh,  but  by  one  decisive 
effort  removed,  and  a  heart  of  flesh  substituted  in  its 


180  THE  spirit's  agency  direct. 

room." "  This  doctrine,  however, 

does  not  militate  against  the  idea  of  an  antecedent 
preparation  in  the  conscience,  wrought  by  the  means 
of  grace  and  the  enlightening  influences  of  the  Spirit." 
— Park  Street  Lectures,  pp.  91,  101. 

These  means  according  to  our  standards  are  "  the 
word,  sacraments,  and  prayer."  In  answer  to  the 
question.  How  is  the  word  made  effectual  to  salvation  ? 
the  following  answer  is  given:  "The  Spirit  of  God 
maketh  the  reading,  but  especially  the  preaching  of 
the  word,  an  effectual  means  of  enlightening,  convinc- 
ing and  humbling  sinners,  of  driving  them  out  of 
themselves,  and  drawing  them  unto  Christ,"  &c. 
Thus  the  law  is  said  to  be  "  our  schoolmaster  to  lead 
us  to  Christ;"  "  The  law  of  the  Lord  is  perfect,  con- 
verting the  soul;"  "Of  his  own  will  begat  he  us,  by 
the  word  of  truth."  But  the  word,  let  it  be  remem- 
bered, is  only  the  means,  which  the  Holy  Spirit  can 
employ  or  not  as  he  pleases ;  and  which  when  he 
does  employ  (as  is  usually  the  case)  does  not  become 
effectual  to  salvation,  till  he  by  a  direct  influence 
upon  the  heart,  prepares  it  to  receive  and  embrace 
the  truth.  Lydia  did  not  attend  to  the  things  spo- 
ken by  Paul,  until  ^Hhe  Lord  opened  her  heart. '^ 
In  order  that  David  might  behold  wondrous  things 
out  of  God's  law,  he  prayed  that  God  would  ''open 
his  eyes.'''  The  primitive  Christians  had  access  by 
faith  into  God's  grace,  and  rejoiced  in  the  hope  of 
the  glory  of  God,  exercising  the  grace  of  patience  in 
their  tribulations,  "because  the  love  of  Crodwas  shed 


DEPRAVITY.  181 

abroad  in  their  hearts  by  the  Holy  Ghost  given  unto 
them." 

Though  all  these  texts  do  not  refer  to  regenera- 
tion in  the  restricted  sense,  they  prove  the  doctrine  of 
the  direct  influence  of  the  Spirit  upon  the  heart — 
and  it  is  for  this  purpose  we  have  referred  to  them. 
If  the  Spirit  exerts  an  immediate  influence  upon  the 
hearts  of  believers,  in  order  to  make  the  word  eff*ec- 
tual  to  their  sanctification,  much  more  on  the  hearts 
of  sinners  to  make  it  efi'ectual  to  their  conversion. 
In  the  mind  of  the  believer  there  is  something  conge- 
nial with  the  spirit  of  the  gospel ;  something,  there- 
fore, for  divine  truth  to  act  upon  in  the  form  of 
motives:  but,  to  use  the  language  of  Dr.  Griffin, 
"motives  can  never  change  an  unholy  temper;  there 
is  no  tendency  in  truth  to  change  a  depraved  'taste,' 
The  change  must  take  place  before  light  can  act." 

This  doctrine  of  the  direct  agency  of  the  Spirit,'and 
the  implantation  of  a  principle  of  holiness  in  the 
heart,  is  inseparably  connected  with  the  sentiment 
that  the  change  is  instantaneous.  Motives  operate 
gradually  upon  the  mind;  but  the  communication  to 
the  soul  of  a  new  spiritual  taste,  is  the  work  of  a 
moment.  We  either  possess  this  holy  temper  or  we 
do  not;  there  is  no  point  of  time  when  we  have 
neither  enmity  nor  love;  or  when  our  afiections 
are  suspended  in  equilibrio  between  the  two.  Our 
souls  are  necessarily  either  in  one  state  or  its  oppo- 
site; and  our  transition,  therefore,  from  one  to  the 
other  must  be  instantaneous;  as  when  God  said,  "Let 
there  be  light,  and  there  was  light." 
16 


182  DOCTRINE   or    OUR    STANDARDS. 

It  may,  perhaps,  be  thought  by  some  that  the  dif- 
ference between  instantaneous  and  gradual  regenera- 
tion is  not  important,  since  both  recognize  the  neces- 
sity of  becoming  holy.  But  a  little  reflection  will 
show  the  contrary.  Gradual  regeneration  is  founded 
on  the  principle  that  there  is  something  good  in  the 
unregenerate  man,  which  needs  only  to  be  fostered 
and  cherished,  in  order  to  make  him  holy.  Of  course 
it  involves  a  denial  of  total  depravity,  and  of  the  neces- 
sity of  an  entire  radical  change  of  character.  It  fos- 
ters pride  and  self-righteousness ;  and  produces  hos- 
tility to  those  doctrines  of  grace  which  distinguish 
the  gospel  from  the  religion  of  nature.  It  is,  in 
short,  taking  a  step  towards  infidelity. 

In  regard  to  human  ability,  our  Confession  of  Faith 
uses  the  following  language  :  "Man,  by  his  fall  into  a 
state  of  sin,  hath  wholly  lost  all  ability  of  will  to  any 
spiritual  good  accompanying  salvation ;  so  as  a  natural 
man  being  altogether  averse  from  that  which  is  good, 
and  dead  in  sin,  is  not  able,  by  his  own  strength,  to 
convert  himself,  or  prepare  himself  thereunto."  Some 
have  endeavoured  to  prove  from  this  passage  that, 
according  to  the  Confession  of  Faith,  depravity  be- 
longs exclusively  to  the  will.  But  this,  it  appears  to 
me,  is  not  a  correct  exposition.  As  the  design  of  the 
chapter  was  to  treat  "  Of  Free  Will,"  it  would  of 
course  state  explicitly  what  effect  the  fall  had  upon 
the  will,  without  speaking,  as  a  matter  of  course,  con- 
cerning the  other  powers  of  the  soul.  There  is,  how- 
ever, a  clause  introduced,  which  was  evidently  designed 
to  refer  to  the  whole  moral  man:  '''Dead  in  sin.''    The 


DEPRAVITY — SCRIPTURE   PROOFS.  183 

preceding  clause,  viz.  "so  as  a  natural  man  being 
altogether  averse  from  tliat  -which  is  good,"  refers  to 
the  will ;  but  to  this,  the  other  is  sujoeradded — "  and 
dead  in  sin" — which  was  intended  to  convey  an 
additional  idea,  embracing,  perhaps,  the  former,  but 
amplifying  and  extending  it,  so  as  to  include  the 
depravity  of  our  whole  nature.  This  will  appear  by 
a  reference  to  the  chapter  on  the  "  Fall  of  Man;" 
where  it  reads  as  follows:  "By  this  sin  they  [our  first 
parents]  fell  from  their  original  righteousness,  and 
communion  with  God,  and  so  became  dead  in  sin,  and 
wholly  defiled  in  all  the  faculties  and  parts  of  soul 
and  body."  It  will  also  appear,  by  a  reference  to  the 
chapter  on  "Efi'ectual  Calling;"  where,  in  describing 
the  manner  in  which  we  are  brought  "  out  of  that 
state  of  sin  and  death,"  it  is  not  only  said  that  oui: 
wills  are  renewed,  but  our  minds  spiritually  and 
savingly  enlightened  to  understand  the  things  of  God ; 
and  our  heart  of  stone  taken  away  and  a  heart  of  flesh 
given  unto  us.  If  depravity  belongs  to  the  will  only, 
that  alone  needs  to  be  operated  upon  in  efi'ectual  call- 
ing. It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  our  standards 
teach  the  doctrine  not  only  that  the  will  is  depraved, 
but  likewise  "all  the  faculties  of  the  soul." 

This  view  also  accords  with  Scripture.  "  There  is 
none  that  under standeth.''  Rom.  iii.  11.  "Having 
the  understanding  darkened,  being  alienated  from 
the  life  of  God  through  the  ignorance  that  is  in  them, 
because  of  the  blindness  of  their  heart."  Eph.  iv.  18. 
"  But  the  natural  man  receiveth  not  the  things  of  the 
Spirit  of  God,   for  they  are  foolishness  unto   him ; 


184  DOCTRINE   OF   OUR   STANDARDS. 

neither  can  he  hnow  them,  because  they  are  spiritual- 
ly discerned."  1  Cor.  ii.  14.  Here  it  is  manifest  that 
our  depravity  affects  the  understanding.  Hence  in 
conversion  it  is  necessary  that  we  he  enlightened  to 
discern  spiritual  things.  *'The  eyes  of  your  under- 
standing being  enlightened."  Eph.  i.  18.  ^Tor  God 
who  commanded  the  light  to  shine  out  of  darkness, 
hath  shined  in  our  hearts,  to  give  the  light  of  the 
knowledge  of  the  glory  of  God  in  the  face  of  Jesus 
Christ."  2  Cor.  iv.  6.  "And  have  put  on  the  new 
man,  which  is  renewed  in  knowledge  after  the  image 
of  him  that  created  him."  Col.  iii.  10. 

Depravity  is  also  predicated  of  the  heart  and  con- 
science. "The  heart  is  deceitful  above  all  things, 
and  desperately  wicked."  Jer.  xvii.  9.  "But  unto 
them  that  are  defiled  and  unbelieving,  is  nothing 
pure;  but  even  their  mind  and  conscience  is  defiled." 
Tit.  i.  15.  Do  these  texts  refer  exclusively  to  the 
will  ?  or  do  they  not  include  also  the  other  moral 
powers  ?  As  the  heart  is  the  seat  of  the  affections,  to 
say  that  the  heart  is  wicked,  is  equivalent  to  declaring 
the  affections  to  be  depraved  and  alienated  from  God. 
Accordingly,  to  change  the  heart  is  to  give  us  a  holy 
temper — to  renew  our  affections.  "The  Lord  thy 
God  will  circumcise  thine  heart,  and  the  heart  of  thy 
seed,  to  love  the  Lord  thy  God."  Deut.  xxx.  6.  "And 
I  will  put  a  new  spirit  within  you,  and  I  will  take  the 
stony  heart  out  of  their  flesh  and  will  give  them  a 
heart  of  flesh."  Ezek.  xi.  19.  When  this  is  done,  our 
conscience  will  likewise  be  rectified.  "  Having  our 
hearts  sprinkled  from  an  evil  conscience."  Heb.  x.  22. 


REMARKS    OF   DR.    WITHERSPOON.  185 

Then,  too,  the  will  which  is  controlled  by  the  state  of 
the  heart,  is  sweetly  inclined  by  the  same  Spirit  to 
choose  and  rest  upon  Christ  as  the  portion  of  the  soul. 
"My  people  shall  be  willing  in  the  day  of  thy  power." 
Psa.  ex.  3. 

From  this  view  of  the  subject,  it  appears  that  the 
fall  has  affected  the  whole  moral  man.  What  God 
says  of  Judah  is  applicable  to  all  mankind.  "The 
whole  head  is  sick,  and  the  whole  heart  faint.  From 
the  sole  of  the  foot  even  unto  the  head,  there  is  no 
soundness  in  it."  Isa.  i.  5,  6.  This  doctrine,  we 
admit,  is  very  humiliating,  and  calculated  to^make 
the  sinner  feel  his  dependence  upon  God.  But  this, 
instead  of  being  an  objection,  is  a  proof  of  its  correct- 
ness. While  it  must  not  be  so  interpreted  as  to  anni- 
hilate or  even  impair  the  sinner's  obligation,  or  form 
any  excuse  for  his  impenitence  and  unbelief,  it  is  a 
doctrine  which  is  pre-eminently  adapted  to  drive  him 
from  those  refuges  of  self-righteousness  and  self-suffi- 
ciency, which  prove  the  ruin  of  so  many  souls,  and 
lead  him  to  seek  salvation  only  through  the  grace  and 
righteousness  of  Jesus  Christ.  It  is,  indeed,  the  very 
point  to  which  sinners  always  come  before  they  em- 
brace the  Saviour. 

On  this  subject  Dr.  Witherspoon  uses  the  following 
language  :  "  On  a  conviction  of  our  own  inability,  one 
would  think  we  should  but  the  more  humbly  and  the  more 
earnestly  apply  to  Him,  who  is  all-sufficient  in  power 
and  grace.  The  deplorable  and  naturally  helpless 
state  of  sinners,  doth  not  hinder  exhortations  to  them 
in  Scripture ;  and  therefore  takes  not  away  their  obli- 
16* 


186  DEPENDENCE — VIEWS    OF   WITHERSPOON. 

gation  to  duty.  See  an  address,  where  the  strongest 
metaphors  are  retained,  the  exhortation  given  in  these 
very  terms,  and  the  foundation  of  the'  duty  plainly 
pointed  out:  'Wherefore  he  saith.  Awake  thou  that 
sleepest,  and  arise  from  the  dead,  and  Christ  shall 
give  thee  light.'  From  which  it  is  very  plain,  that 
the  moral  inability,  under  which  sinners  now  lie,  as  a 
consequence  of  the  fall,  is  not  of  such  a  nature  as  to 
take  away  the  guilt  of  sin,  the  propriety  of  exhorta- 
tion to  duty,  or  the  necessity  of  endeavours  after 
recovery." "I  make  no  scruple  to  acknow- 
ledge, that  it  is  impossible  for  me;  nay,  I  find  no  diffi- 
culty in  supposing  that  it  is  impossible  for  any  finite 
mind,  to  point  out  the  bounds  between  the  'dependence' 

and  'activity'  of  the  creature." "The  new 

birth  is  a  ' supernatural  change;'  it  is  the  eifect  of  the 
power  of  God ;  it  is  the  work  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  I 
have  been  at  the  more  pains  to  establish  this  truth, 
because  I  am  persuaded,  that  until  it  be  truly  received 
there  may  be  a  form,  but  there  can  be  nothing  of  the 

power  of  godliness." "  But  what  shall  we 

say?  Alas!  the  very  subject  we  are  now  speaking 
of  affords  a  new  proof  of  the  blindness,  prejudice,  and 
obstinacy  of  sinners.  They  are  self-condemned ;  for 
they  do  not  act  the  same  part  in  similar  cases.  The 
affairs  of  the  present  life  are  not  managed  in  so  pre- 
posterous a  manner.  He  that  ploughs  his  ground, 
and  throws  in  his  seed,  cannot  so  much  as  unite  one 
grain  to  the  clod ;  nay,  he  is  not  able  to  conceive  how 
it  is  done.  He  cannot  carry  on,  nay,  he  cannot  so 
much  as  begin  one  single  step  of  this  wonderful  pro- 


DEPRAVITY.  187 

cess  towards  the  subsequent  crop  ;  the  mortification  of 
the  seed,  the  resurrection  of  the  blade,  and  gradual 
increase,  till  it  come  to  perfect  maturity.  Is  it,  there- 
fore, reasonable  that  he  should  say,  '  I  for  my  part 
can  do  nothing ;  it  is,  first  and  last,  an  effect  of  divine 
power  and  energy:  and  God  can  as  easily  raise  a  crop 
Avithout  sowing  as  with  it ;  in  a  single  instant,  and  in 
any  place,  as  in.  a  long  time  by  the  mutual  influence 
of  soil  and  season ;  I  will  therefore  spare  myself  the 
hardship  of  toil  and  labour,  and  wait  with  patience 
till  I  see  what  he  will  be  pleased  to  send  V  Would 
not  this  be  madness?  Would  it  not  be  universally 
reputed  so  ?  And  w^ould  it  not  be  equal  madness  to 
turn  the  grace  of  God  into  licentiousness  ?  Believe  it, 
the  warning  is  equally  reasonable  and  equally  neces- 
sary, in  spiritual  as  in  temporal  things.  'Be  not 
deceived,  God  is  not  mocked,  for  whatsoever  a  man 
soweth,  that  shall  he  also  reap :  for  he  that  soweth  to 
the  flesh,  shall  of  the  flesh  reap  corruption ;  but  he 
that  soweth  to  the  Spirit,  shall  of  the  Spirit  reap  life 
everlasting.'  " — Practical  Treatise  on  Regeneration, 
Sect.  4. 

But  while  the  doctrine  of  human  inability  and  de- 
pendence upon  God,  as  understood  and  believed  by 
the  friends  of  the  Old  Theology,  does  not  destroy 
accountableness,  nor  impair  obligation,  nor  discourage 
effort;  but  brings  the  sinner  to  his  proper  place,  be- 
fore the  throne  of  divine  mercy;  we  think  the  doctrine 
of  ability^  as  maintained  by  the  advocates  of  the  New 
Theology,  is  calculated  to  produce  such  independence 
of  feeling,  w^th  regard  to  the  Spirit's  influences,  as  to 


188  REVIVALS— MR.    FINNEY. 

be  a  serious  obstacle  to  genuine  conversion.  Among 
the  "false  comforts  for  sinners,"  which  Mr.  Finney 
enumerates,  one  is,  "telling  the  sinner  io  pray  for  a 
new  heart,''  He  asks,  "Does  God  say.  Pray  for  a 
ne^Y  heart?  Never.  He  says,  'Make  you  a  new 
heart.'  And  the  sinner  is  not  to  be  told  to  pray  to 
God  to  do  his  duty  for  him,  but  to  go  and  do  it  him- 
self."— Lectures  on  Revivals^,  ^.  318.  Thus  it  ap- 
pears, we  must  not  direct  sinners  to  seek  God  for 
renewing  grace,  because  they  have  sufficient  ability  of 
their  own  to  perform  the  work.  To  preach  to  them 
the  necessity  of  the  Spirit's  influences,  while  exhorting 
them  to  duty,  would  be  according  to  him  "unphiloso- 
phical."  AVe  must  tell  them  "to  go  and  do  it  them- 
selves." AVhat  kind  of  conversions  is  such  instruction 
as  this  calculated  to  produce?*     It  is  no  wonder  that 

*  Let  the  reader  judge  of  the  probable  effect  upon  the  sinner 
of  preaching  such  doctrines  as  are  developed  in  the  follo"wing 
conversation  between  a  licentiate,  a  student  from  New  Haven, 
and  two  highly  respectable  ministers,  in  1832.  It  was  taken 
down  at  the  time  by  one  of  the  ministers,  as  he  has  informed 
me,  "  the  paper  sealed  up,  and  has  been  kept  since  a  secret." 
In  communicating  it  to  me  a  few  weeks  ago,  he  observes :  "If 
you  judge  it  to  be  proper,  you  are  now  at  liberty  to  use  the 
document  in  your  forthcoming  book ;  suppressing  the  names 
for  the  present,  but  considering  me  as  responsible  for  the  state- 
ment, and  ready  to  give  the  names  hereafter  if  necessary." 

**Mr. ,  [one  of  the  ministers,]  in  the  course  of  general 

conversation,  alluded  to  New  Haven  as  a  school  of  Theology, 

and  asked  finally  that  Mr. ,  [the  licentiate,]  would  state 

what  were  the  peculiarities  of  Professor  Fitches  scheme  of  na- 
tural depravity.     Mr. avowed  himself  a  believer  in  that 

scheme,  and  stated  among  other  things,  in  substance  as  fol- 


REVIVALS — MR.    FINNEY.  189 

the  revivals  of  religion  wliicli  have  occurred  within 
the  last  ten  years,  under  the  ministry  of  such  men, 
should  furnish  so  many  examples  of  apostacy.     In  a 

lows:  (many  of  the  following  views,  he  said,  however,  were 
Ids  oivn,  and  not  chargeable  upon  any  others,  or  any  particular 
school:)  that  'moral  character  was  predicated  entirely  on 
choice  between  good  and  evil :  that  man  was  not  regarded  with 
displeasure  in  the  sight  of  God,  either  by  impiitatioji  of  origiiial 
sin,  or  as  having  a  disposition  to  evil.  He  was  in  no  sense  a 
sinner,  until  of  sufi&cient  age  and  capacity  to  choose  for  him- 
self; and  t/"  there  was  a  period  in  his  existence  previous  to 
that,  during  that  period  he  was  an  innocent  being.'  " 

"  The  bearing  of  this  on  the  doctrine  of  regeneration  was  then 

suggested ;  whereupon  Mr. stated  in  substance,  that  he 

did  not  regard  the  saying  of  Christ  to  Nicodemus,  *  that  which 
is  born  of  the  JlesJi  is  Jlesh,  and  that  which  is  born  of  the  Spirit 
is  spirit,'  as  implying  any  thing  like  a  new  moral  nature,  oppo- 
site to  his  first  nature,  as  given  to  him  in  regeneration.  He 
believed  that  subject  had  been  misunderstood.  There  was 
indeed  a  necessity  for  regeneration,  but  it  consisted  not  in  the 
implantation  of  new  principles,  but  the  rational  turning  of  the 
same  principles  to  a  new  course.  As  to  the  loay  in  which  it  was 
produced,  God's  help  was  indeed  necessary,  but  no  more  so 
than  in  every  other  action  of  man.  He  presented  motives,  and 
when  a  man  sincerely  made  up  his  resolution  to  follow  them, 
and  did  decide  to  do  so,  that  was  the  beginning  of  a  new  life.' 

Mr. asked  him  if  any  sinner  ever  did  come  to  Christ 

without yeeZm^  his  helpless  and  lost  condition?    Mr. said 

'  he  thought,  yes;  and  mentioned  his  own  case.'  " 

"The  bearing  of  the  subject  on  atonement  and  justification 

was  next  alluded  to ;  and  Mr. [the  licentiate,]  observed 

*  that  it  was  a  scheme  which  did  indeed  run  through  the  whole. 
As  to  atonement,  he  believed  in  it,  but  he  semed  to  consider  it 
as  consisting  in  what  lay  between  God  and  his  intelligent  uni- 
verse exclusively,  and  that  for  laying  a  ground  of  justifying  his 
own  proceedings;  as  such,  a  man  ought  to  trust  in  or  believe 


190  REVIVALS — MR.    FINNEY. 

discourse  delivered  by  Mr.  Finney  in  Chatham  street 
chapel,  in  1836,  are  found  such  sentences  as  the  fol- 

the  atonement:  but  in  [the]  matter  of  personal  experience  we 
had  nothing  to  do  with  it;  the  righteousness  of  Christ  is  in  no 
sense  imputed  to  us :  we  must  be  accepted  on  the  ground  of 
our  own  obedience.' " 

"Much  was  said  also  oitlie  practical  influence  of  such  a  style 

of  preaching;  and  it  was  objected  to  Mr. 's  scheme,  that 

taking  men  as  they  are,  they  would  be  likely  to  interpret  his 
views  of  their  own  powers  and  independency  as  even  more 
favourable  to  themselves  than  he  probably  intended:   and  Mr. 

[one  of  the  ministers]  remarked  that  as  the  gospel  was 

represented  *  to  be  a  seeking  and  saving  that  which  was  lost;* 
*to  kill  and  make  alive;'  he  had  always  felt  it  to  be  more 
necessary  to  show  men  their  helplessness  connected  with  their 
guilt,  and  a  way  of  hope,  than  to  persuade  them  of  their  own 
powers.  Mr. [the  licentiate,]  held  the  opposite  opin- 
ion. He  seemed  to  think  that  the  reason  why  many  moro 
were  not  pious,  was,  that  too  many  and  unnecessary  difficulties 
were  left  in  the  way.  They  ought  to  be  reasoned  with  more: 
show  them  that  this  work  is  not  so  hard  and  unreasonable: 
they  could  be  persuaded  to  make  a  choice  if  you  would  only 
present  the  thing  as  rational;  and  many  were  thus  won, 
where  this  scheme  was  now  adopted.'  He  said  much  of  the 
figurative  language  of  Scripture,  and  seemed  to  think  that 
such  passages  as  *the  carnal  mind  is  enmity  against  God,'  did 
not  apply  to  men  at  the  present  age  of  the  world,  but  peculiar- 
ly to  the  Jews,  on  account  of  their  prejudices.  The  opposition 
which  we  have  often  witnessed  against  religion  in  natural  men 
is  not  so  much  against  God  or  religion  itself,  as  against  the 
prejudiced  representations  of  it  by  mistaken  teachers.' " 

This  individual,  who  is  denominated  by  my  correspondent 
"a  respectable  young  man,"  was  at  that  time,  as  I  infer  from 
his  letter,  seeking  a  settlement  in  a  Presbyterian  congrega- 
tion. 


REMARKS   OF   DR.    REED.  191 

lowing  :*  "You  profess  that  you  want  to  have  sinners 
converted.  But  what  avails  it  if  they  sink  right  back 
again  into  conformity  to  the  world?"  ....  "Where 
are  the  proper  results  of  the  glorious  revivals  we  have 
had?" "The  great  body  of  them  [the  con- 
verts of  the  last  ten  years]  are  a  disgrace  to  religion." 
.  ..."  Of  what  use  is  it  to  convert  sinners  and  make 
them  such  Christians  as  these?"  This  is  an  acknow- 
ledgment that  the  fruits  of  those  revivals  are  not  such 
as  were  anticipated — and  so  long  as  converts  are 
made  under  the  influence  of  such  doctrines,  and  that 
system  of  measures  which  corresponds  with  them,  we 
must  expect  similar  results.  Their  goodness  will  be 
as  the  morning  cloud,  and  as  the  early  dew  it  will 
pass  away. 

The  following  remarks  of  Dr.  Reed,  one  of  the 
delegates  from  England  to  the  American  churches, 
accord  with  the  sentiments  and  observation  of  very 
many  in  America,  who  have  been  "  witnesses  of  these 
things."  "The  New  Divinity  and  the  New  Measures 
have  greatly  coalesced,  and  they  have  given  for  the 
time,  currency  to  each  other.  Many  pious  and  ardent 
persons  and  preachers,  from  the  causes  to  which  I 
have  adverted,  were  disposed  to  think  that  the  new 
opinions  had  all  the  advantage  in  a  revival,  and  this  "-M 
gave  them  all  the  preference  in  their  judgment.  Where 
they  in  connection  with  the  New  Measures  have  been 

*  We  quote  from  the  Literary  and  Theological  Review.  The 
sermon  it  appears  was  reported  in  the  New  York  Evangelist, 
February  13,  183G. 


192  REMARKS    OP   DR.    REED. 

vigorously  applied,  there  has,  indeed,  been  no  want 
of  excitement.  The  preacher  who  firmly  believes  that 
the  conversion  of  men  rests  on  the  force  of  moral 
suasion^  is  not  unlikely  to  be  persuasive.  And  the 
hearer  whoTs' told  '  he  can  convert  himself,'  that  it  is 
'  as  easy  for  him  to  do  so  as  to  walk,'  that  he  has  only 
*  to  resolve  to  do  it  and  it  is  done,'  is  not  unlikely  to  be 
moved  into  self-complacent  exertion.  But  it  may  be 
asked,  does  either  the  preacher  or  the  hearer  possess 
those  sentiments  which  are  likely  to  lead  to  a  true 
conversion,  and  to  bring  forth  fruits  meet  for  repent- 
ance?" 

"By  their  fruits  ye  shall  know  them.     There  has 
certainly  been  good  done  where  there  has  been  much 
evil,  for  with  this  evil  there  has  been  a  large  portion 
of  divine  truth.     But  I  fear  not  to  say,  that  where 
I  there  has  been  the  largest  infusion  of  the  New  Divi-. 
j   nity  into   the  New  Measures,  there   has   been   the- 
/    greatest    amount    of    unwarrantable    extravagance.} 
I     There  has  been  great  excitement,  much  animal  emo-l 
tion  and  sympathy,  high  resolves,  and  multiplied  con-j 
versions,  hut  time  has  tested   them   and   they  have] 
t    failed,''' 


CONTRAST — OLD   AND    NEW   THEOLOGY.  193 


CHAPTER  IX. 

A  CONTRAST  BETWEEN  THE  OLD  AND  NEW  THEOLOGY,  BY  WAY 
OF  REVIEW,  AND  A  NOTICE  OF  THE  PERFECTIONISM  OF  MR. 
FINNEY. 

That  the  reader  may  see  at  a  single  view  the  most 
prominent  points  of  difference  between  the  Old  and 
New  Theology,  we  shall  exhibit  them  in  few  words  by 
way  of  contrast : — in  doing  which  we  shall  take  a  kind 
of  retrospect  of  the  subject,  and  exemplify  some  of 
the  principles  which  have  been  noticed,  by  a  few  addi- 
tional quotations. 

1.  The  Old  Theology  places  God  upon  the  throne 
of  the  universe,  and  makes  him  competent  to  say  con- 
cerning all  creatures  and  events,  "My  counsel  shall 
stand,  and  I  will  do  all  my  pleasure."  The  New 
makes  him  so  dependent  upon  the  volitions  of  moral 
agents,  that  he  is  liable  to  suffer  disappointment,  and 
to  have  his  happiness  diminished,  by  the  uncontrolla- 
ble agency  of  men : — and  this  not  only  in  the  present 
world,  but  in  the  next.  Prof.  Fitch  affirms  that  God's 
"  purpose  was  to  confer  on  the  beings  composing  his 
moral  kingdom,  the  power  of  volition  and  choice,  and 
to  use  the  best  influence  Gfod  could  use  on  the  whole 
to  secure  the  holiness  and  prevent  the  sin  of  such 
beings,  wh^o  themselves,  and  not  he,  were  to  have  im- 
mediate 'power  over  their  volitions.'''  Again:  "We 
affirm  that  the  causes  in  Mnd  which  originate  sin, 
being  inseparably  inherent  in  a  moral  universe,  may 
so  accumulate  in  degree  under  every  system  of  pro- 
17 


194  CONTRAST — THE   FALL. 

vidence  and  government  which  can  he  loursued,  as  to 
render  sure  the  occurrence  of  sin.  If  in  a  universe 
of  such  beings,  no  possible  system  of  providence 
adopted  mid  pursued  through  eternity  can  shut 
out  all  occasions  of  the  outhreahings  of  sin,  it  is  easy 
to  see,  that  as  to  his  preventing  it,  sin  is  unavoidably 
incidental  to  the  acts  of  the  Creator  in  creating  and 

governing  such  a  kingdom." "  The  causes 

in  hind  which  are  known  to  originate  sin  in  the  pre- 
sent universe,  must  necessarily  be  present  in  any  pos- 
sible universe  of  moral  beings." "If  the 

causes  of  defectibility  are  thus  inseparable  from  the 
existence  of  a  universe  of  moral  beings,  is  there  not  a 
ground  of  prohahility  that  they  will  lead  to  actual 
defection  in  every  jyossible  system  as  tvell  as  in 
this?'' — "Review  of  Dr.  Fisk's  Discourse  on  Predes- 
tination and  Election,  and  a  Defence  of  that  Review 
in  the  Christian  Spectator."  What  low  and  unwor- 
thy views  does  this  statement  convey  concerning  the 
Deity !  What  dismal  prospects  it  presents  to  the  ex- 
pectant of  future  and  eternal  bliss  ! 

2.  The  Old  Theology  regards  the  fall  of  man  as  a 
catastrophe  so  direful  in  its  effects,  that  no  power  less 
than  Omnipotence  is  adequate  to  "quicken  sinners 
who  are  dead  in  trespasses  and  sins."  The  New 
treats  it  as  a  calamity,  which  the  sinner  is  able,  since 
the  introduction  of  a  system  of  mercy  through  Jesus 
Christ,  to  repair  himself.  Says  Mr.  Finney,  "  Now 
suppose  God  to  have  come  out  upon  Adam  with  the 
command  of  the  text,  ^  Make  you  a  new  heart,  for  why 
will  ye  die  V      Could  Adam    have  justly  answered, 


CONTRAST — COVENANT   WITH   ADAM.  195 

Dost  thou  think  that  I  can  change  my  own  heart  'i 
Can  I,  who  have  a  heart  totally  depraved,  can  I 
change  that  heart  ?  Might  not  the  Almighty  have 
answered  him  in  words  of  fire,  Rebel,  you  have  just 
changed  your  heart  from  holiness  to  sin,  now  change 
it  back  from  sin  to  holiness." — Servians  on  Important 
Subjects^  p.  13.  See  also  Mr.  Barnes's  remarks  on 
the  text,  "  When  we  were  without  strength,  Christ 
died  for  the  ungodly,"  in  Chap.  vii.  We  shall  like- 
wise give  one  or  two  additional  quotations  in  the  pre- 
sent chapter,  under  the  head  of  Ability. 

3.  The  Old  Theology  maintains  that  Adam  was  tho 
federal  head  of  his  posterity,  and  that,  by  breaking 
the  covenant  under  which  he  was  placed,  he  involved 
not  only  himself,  but  all  his  posterity,  in  sin  and 
misery — the  guilt  of  his  first  sin  being  imputed  to  them, 
or  set  over  in  law  to  their  account ;  so  that  they  all 
come  into  the  world  with  depraved  and  sinful  natures. 
The  New  denies  that  we  sustain  a  covenant  relation 
to  Adam  ;  and  maintains  that  he  was  only  our  natural 
head  and  father — from  whose  sin  it  results  as  a  mat- 
ter of  fact,  according  to  the  common  laws  of  human 
society,  and  that  all  his  posterity  become  sinners 
when  they  arrive  at  moral  agency;  before  which  time 
they  are  neither  sinful  nor  holy ;  and  that  they 
become  sinners  by  their  own  voluntary  act,  after  a 
trial,  it  would  seem,  similar  to  what  Adam  had. 
Says  Dr.  Taylor,  in  reply  to  a  supposed  objection, 
"  Why  render  this  universal  sinfulness  of  a  race,  the 
consequence  of  one  man's  act  ?  why  not  give  to  each 
a  fair  trial  for  himself?"     "  I  answer,   God  does  give 


Q 


196  CONTRAST — DR.    TAYLOR' S   REMARKS. 

to  each  a  fair  trial  for  himself.  Not  a  human  heing 
does  or  can  become  thus  sinful  or  depraved  but  by  his 
own  choice,  God  does  not  compel  him  to  sin  by  the 
nature  he  gives  him.  Nor  is  his  sin,  although  a  con- 
sequence of  Adam's  sin,  in  such  a  sense  its  conse- 
quence as  not  to  be  a  free  voluntary  act  of  his  own. 
He  sins  freely,  voluntarily.  There  is  no  other  way 
of  sinning.  God,  (there  is  no  irreverence  in  saying 
it,)  can  make  nothing  else  sin  but  the  sinner's  act." — 
Concio  ad  Clerum. 

Mr.  Barnes  observes:  "If  it  were  a  dogma  of  a 
pretended  revelation,  that  God  might  at  pleasure, 
and  by  an  arbitrary  decree,  make  crime  pass  from 
one  individual  to  another — striking  onward  from 
age  to  age,  and  reaching  downward  to  '  the  last  sea- 
son of  recorded  time' — punished  in  the  original  offen- 
der ;  repunished  in  his  children ;  and  punished  again 
and  again  by  infinite  multiples,  in  countless  ages  and 
individuals;  and  all  this  judicial  infliction,  for  a  sin- 
gle act,  performed  cycles  of  ages  before  the  individ- 
uals lived,  we  see  not  how  any  evidence  could  shake 
our  intrinsic  belief  that  this  is  unjust  and  improba-^ 

ble." "We   never   can    adopt  that   system 

which  tramples  on  the  analogies  which  actually  exist, 
and  holds  men  to  be  personally  answerable,  and  actu- 
ally 'punished  by  a  just  God,  for  an  act  committed 
thousands  of  years  before  they  were  born.  Such  a 
doctrine  is  no  where  to  be  found  in  the  Scriptures." — 
Introductory  Essay  to  Butler  s  Analogy,  pp.  35,  39. 

All  that  we  deem  it  necessary  to  say  concerning 
the  views  contained  in  these  extracts,  is,  that   U7ii- 


CONTRAST — THE  ATONEMENT.  197 

tarians  consider  them    '^  sound  and  lucid."     In  the 
Review  of  Mr.  Barnes's  Notes  on  the  Romans,  in  the 
Christian  Examiner,  already  referred  to,  [a  Unitarian 
Quarterly]   the  reviewer  says:     "On  the  subject  of 
man's    nature,    capacities,    and  duty,  our    author  is 
sound  and  lucid.     The  idea  of  hereditary  depravity 
he  spurns,  as  unworthy  of  even  a  passing  notice.     He 
asserts  repeatedly  that    men   sin  only  in  their  own 
person,  in  themselves,  as  indeed  how  can  they  sin  in 
any  other  way?     The  imputation  of  Adam's  trans- 
gression he  treats  as  a  scholastic  absurdity."  .... 
f ''Of  the  figment  of  Adam's  federal  headship  and  the 
I  condemnation  of  his  posterity  for  partnership  in  his 
I  sin,  Mr.  Barnes  says  '  there  is  not  one  word  of  it  in 
!  the  Bible.'  "* 

■^"  The  views  of  Socmus  are  as  follows: 

Quest.  1.  "Is  it  in  our  power  fully  to  obey  the  command- 
ments of  God?'' 

Answ.  "Certainly;  for  it  is  evident,  that  the  first  man  was 
so  formed  by  God,  that  he  was  endued  with  free  will;  and  no 
reason  existed  why  he  should  be  deprived  of  this  power  after 
the  fall;  nor  was  it  consistent  with  the  justice  of  God,  that 
man  should  be  deprived  of  free  will.  Accordingly,  in  the 
punishment  inflicted  on  his  sin,  there  is  no  mention  made  of 
any  such  loss." 

Quest.  2.  "  But  is  not  the  will  of  man  vitiated  by  original 
sin?" 

Answ.  "There  is  no  such  thing  as  original  sin;  the  Scrip- 
ture teaches  no  such  doctrine ;  and  the  will  of  man  could  not 
be  vitiated  by  a  cause  which  had  no  existence.  The  sin  of 
Adam,  being  a  single  act,  could  not  corrupt  his  own  nature, 
much  less  had  it  power  to  deprave  the  nature  of  all  his  poste- 
rity.   That  this  sin  should  be  charged  on  them,  is,  as  has  been 

17* 


^ 


198  CONTRAST — THE   ATONEMENT. 

4.  The  Old  Theology  maintains  that  the  atone- 
ment consisted  in  rendering  satisfaction  to  divine  jus- 
tice by  the  vicarious  sufferings  of  Christ,  who  endured 
in  our  stead  the  penalty  of  the  law,  and  offered  up 
himself  an  acceptable  sacrifice  to  God :  by  which  of- 
fering God's  "favour  was  propitiated  for  us,"  his  law 
magnified,  and  his  government  sustained:  so  that 
without  doing  violence  to  his  holy  nature,  or  relin- 
quishing the  claims  of  his  law,  or  dishonouring  his 
government,  he  secured  the  salvation  of  those  who 
were  given  to  Christ  in  the  covenant  of  redemption ; 
John  xvii.  2 ;  Isa.  liii.  11,  12 ;  and  laid  the  founda- 
tion for  a  free  offer  of  mercy  to  all  who  hear  the  gos- 
pel. Mark  xvi.  15 ;  John  iii.  16. 

The  New  Theology  considers  the  atonement  as  in- 
volving a  suspension  of  the  penalty  of  the  law,  and 
as  consisting  in  a  ''symbolical  display''  to  the  uni- 
verse, for  the  purpose  of  producing  such  an  impres- 
sion of  God's  hatred  to  sin,  as  would  render  it  safe 
and  proper  for  him  as  moral  Governor,  to  bestow 
pardon  upon  sinners :  and  as  to  sinners  themselves, 
it  is  an  ''experiment,''  made  by  God  for  their  salva- 
tion; which,  through  his  impotency  to  control  moral 
agents,  may  fail  of  its  intended  result.*      Among 

said,  a  doctrine  unknown  to  the  Scriptures;  and  it  is  utterly 
incredible,  that  God,  who  is  the  fountain  of  equity,  should  be 
willing  to  impute  it  to  them." — Racovian  tna^ec/iiswi^ compiled 
from  the  writings  of  Socinus,  anopublished  A.  D.  1606 ;  trans- 
lated for  the  Biblical  Repertory ;  q.  v. 

*  I  have  not  met  with  any  writer  who  expressed  himself  in 
this  revolting  form,  except  Mr.  Jenkyn,  in  his  work  on  the 


CONTRAST — THE  ATONEMENT.  199 

other  relations  of  the  atonement  discussed  bj  Mr, 
Jenkyn,  he  considers  it  in  relation  to  the  purposes 
and  providences  of  God.  Under  the  former  he  ob- 
serves, "The  various  dispensations  of  probation  are 
various  experiments  in  moral  government,  in  which 
God  submits  Ms  own  plans  and  ways  to  the  accept- 
ance and  for  the  use  of  free  agents.  If  any  object 
to  the  word  ^  experiment ,  I  beg  to  refer  them  for  the 
meaning  of  it,  to  the  parable  of  the  barren  fig-tree, 
and  to  that  of  the  husbandman  sending  his  servants, 
and  afterwards  his  son  to  the  vineyard.  These  dis- 
pensations or  experiments  are  capable  of  failure. 
The  Eden  experiment  failed — and  the  Sinai  experi- 
ment failed.  Such  susceptibility  of  failure  has  been  \ 
shown  to  be  incidental  to  a  moral  government  and  a  | 
state  of  trial,"  Under  its  relation  to  providence  he 
says,  "The  measures  of  providence  are  liable  to  fail- 
ure. A  medicine  may  fail,  notwithstanding  the  virtue 
which  providence  has  given  it.  The  crop  of  the  hus- 
bandman may  fail,  notwithstanding  the  provision 
that  seed-time  and  harvest-time  shall  continue.  The 
morbid  fear  of  acknowledging  such  a  liableness  to 
failure  in  the  measures  of  providence  is  unaccounta- 
ble, when  Crod  declares  his  own  government  of  the 
Jeu)s^  under  the  theocracy^  to  have  failed  of  its  end, 
'  In  vain  have  I  smitten  them,  they  have  refused  to 

Atonement.  But  this  is  a  correct  statement,  it  appears  to  me, 
of  the  doctrine,  as  held  by  those  (if  they  are  consistent)  who, 
in  connection  with  the  New-school  view  of  atonement,  adopt 
also  the  new  theory  concerning  the  character  and  government 
of  God. 


i 


200  CONTRAST — Christ's  righteousness. 

receive  correction.'  Jer.  ii.  30.  The  word  of  God 
distinctly  and  expressly  recognizes  the  same  liableness 
to  failure  in  the  great  measure  of  atonement.  Are 
you  sure  that  it  is  not  attachment  to  system  rather 
than  attachment  to  the  truth  that  makes  you  hesitate 
to  avow  it?"  pp.  97,  168.  Quere.  If  God's  "plan' 
or  '"'experiment,'"  or  '•'measure  of  atonement,''  is 
liable  to  failure;  and  if  it  does  fail  in  numerous 
instances,  as  Mr.  Jenkyn  intimates,  and  elsewhere 
admits,  what  security  have  we  that  it  will  not  fail 
altogether?  What  if  it  should  happen,  that  when 
'' submitted  to  the  acceptance  of  free  agents,''  they 
should  all  object  to  it,  and  refuse  to  comply  with  its 
conditions !  Has  God  poiver  to  control  the  exercise 
of  their  free  agency  and  persuade  them  to  change 
their  minds?  or  may  they  not,  in  despite  of  his 
mightiest  influence,  persist  in  rejecting  Christ,  and 
so  despoil  him  of  his  mediatorial  reward  ? 

5.  The  Old  Theology  arrays  the  believer  in  the 
robe  of  Christ's  righteousness ;  which  being  imputed 
to  him  and  received  by  faith,  is  the  ground  of  his 
justification  before  God.  "This  is  his  name  whereby 
he  shall  be  called,  The  Lord  our  Righteousness.'* 
Jer.  xxiii.  6.  "And  be  found  in  him,  not  having 
mine  own  righteousness,  which  is  of  the  law,  but  that 
which  is  through  the  faith  of  Christ,  the  righteous- 
ness of  God  by  faith."  Phil.  iii.  9.  "And  to  her 
[the  Lamb's  wife,  the  church,]  was  granted,  that  she 
should  be  arrayed  in  fine  linen,  clean  and  white :  for 
the  fine  linen  is  the  righteousness  of  saints."  Rev. 
xix.  8.     "You  have  here,"  says  Henry,  "a  descrij)- 


CONTRAST — Christ's  righteousness.  201 

tion  of  the  bride,  how  she  appeared ;  in  fine  linen, 
clean  and  white,  which  is,  the  righteousness  of  saints; 
in  the  robes  of  Christ's  righteousness,  both  imputed 
for  justification,  and  imparted  for  sanctification." 

The  New  Theology  discards  the  doctrine  of  impu- 
ted righteousness,  and  maintains  that  the  believer's 
faith,  being  an  act  which  God  approves,  and  which 
leads  to  other  holy  acts,  is  reckoned  to  him  for  right- 
eousness ;  and  in  consequence  of  it  God  pardons  his 
sin  and  receives  him  into  favour.  "Faith,"  says  Mr. 
Finney,  "  is  the  appointed  instrument  of  our  justifi- 
cation, because  it  is  the  natural  instrument  of  sancti- 
fication. It  is  the  instrument  of  bringing  us  back  to 
obedience,  and  therefore  is  designated  as  the  means 
of  obtaining  the  blessings  of  that  return.  It  is  not 
imputed  to  us  by  an  arbitrary  act,  for  what  it  is  not, 
but  for  what  it  is,  as  the  foundation  of  all  real  obe- 
dience to  God.  This  is  the  reason  why  faith  is  made 
the  medium  through  which  pardon  comes.  It  is  sim- 
ply set  down  to  us  for  what  it  really  is ;  because  it 
first  leads  us  to  obey  God  from  a  principle  of  love  to 
him." — Lectures  to  Professing  Christians,  p.  221. 

Which  of  these  doctrines  is  more  calculated  to 
humble  the  creature  and  to  honour  Christ?  "If  faith 
itself  is  our  justifying  righteousness,  then  it  justifies 
as  a  work,  as  truly  as  any  other  works  could;  and" 
.  .  .  .  "if  a  man  is  justified  on  account  of  the  act 
of  believing,  and  that  act  he  can  perform  by  the 
power  of  free  will,  he  has  as  much  ground  of  boasting 
as  he  could  possibly  have,  if  he  had  been  justified 
by  other  works." — Dr,  Alexander. 


202  CONTRAST — HUMAN   ABILITY. 

6.  The  Old  Theology  places  the  sinner  at  the 
threshold  of  sovereign  mercy,  a  dependent  though 
guilty  suppliant  for  grace  and  salvation.  The  New 
gives  him  sufficient  ability  to  do  all  that  God  requires 
of  him,  without  divine  aid.  In  a  review  of  Watson's 
Institutes  in  the  Christian  Spectator,  are  found  the 
following:  "He  [Mr.  Watson]  repeatedly  speaks  of 
the  power  of  the  will,  by  which  he  intends,  of  course, 
its  'gracious  ability'  before  the  fall,  as  being  lost  by 
Adam,  'for  himself  and  for  his  descendants.'  "  .  .  .  . 
"Admitting  it  to  be  true  in  Adam's  case,  that  by  sin- 
ning he  was  shorn  of  his  power  to  obey  God,  what 
Las  this  to  do  with  his  posterity'^  The  principle 
assumed  in  the  argument,  renders  it  impossible,  that 
their  moral  agency  should  be  unhinged,  until  they 
exist  and  sin;  therefore  Adams  sin  could  have  no 
more  tendency  to  destroy  their  power  to  choose  good, 
or  to  set  their  teeth  on  edge,  than  it  had  to  produce 
the  same  effects  upon  Satan  and  his  apostate  host,'' 
"  We  should  like  to  know,  whether  the  ad- 
mirers of  Mr.  Watson  believe  it  impossible  for  God  to 
create  a  being,  possessing  in  himself  the  ability  to 
choose  good  a?id  be  holy,  without  the  gift  of  the  Sp)irit? 
and  if  so,  where  is  his  omnipotence  ?  If  it  is  admitted 
that  he  can  create  such  a  being,  we  ask  whether  the 
principles  of  divine  government  do  not  fully  demon- 
strate, that  mayi  is  such  a  being?  If  he  is  not,  is 
God's  government  adapted  to  him?  What  notion 
f  can  be  formed  of  a  subject  of  moral  government,  who 
is  destitute  of  moral  liberty?  or  in  other  words, 
who,  in  every  instance  of  obedience  or  disobedience, 


CONTRAST — THE    HOLY    SPIRIT.  203 

does  not  act  with  inherent   power  to   the   contrary 
choiCQV''— Christian  Spectator,  1835,  pp.  376,  377. 

7.  The  Old  Theology  makes  regeneration  a  radical 
change — a  change  in  the  disposition  and  temper  of 
the  sinner,  as  well  as  in  his  acts.  The  New  regards 
it  as  merely  giving  a  different  direction  to  our  consti- 
tutional desires;  but  appears  to  make  little  or  no  dif- 
ference between  .the  'princij)les  of  action,  in  converted 
and  unconverted  men.     They   differ  only  as  to  the 

(  "..fZi^  ^^  pursuit."  In  reference  to  a  sentiment  ad- 
vanced by  Dr.  Griffin,  that  the  sinner  has  no  taste  for 
holiness,  and  therefore  cannot  be  regenerated  by 
motives,  Mr.  Gilbert  remarks,  "  The  impenitent  sin- 
ner has  no  Haste'  for  conviction;  his  unholy  temper 
is  as  really  opposed  to  truth  as  to  holiness ;  and  this 
philosophy  would  make  it  as  impossible  to  convict  as 
to  convert  him;  to  sanctify  as  to  regenerate  him. 
The  unconverted  man  has  no  Haste'  for  conviction, 
nor  the  converted  man  for  more  sanctification." 
Mark,  "  Tlie  unconverted  man  has  no  taste  for  con- 
viction, nor  the  converted  7nan  for  more  sanctifica- 
tion !"  What  then  is  the  difference  between  the  taste 
or  temper,  or  disposition  of  an  impenitent  sinner,  and 
a  child  of  God  ?  For  aught  we  can  perceive,  they 
are  precisely  the  same. 

8.  The  Old  Theology  gives  honour  to  Christ  and 
the  Holy  Spirit — the  New  has  a  tendency  to  throw 
them,  particularly  the  latter,  into  the  shade.     "You 

*  Concerning  the  power  of  contrary  choice,  see  Dr.  Beecher's 
views,  and  Dr.  Harvey's  remarks  upon  them  in  Chapter  vii. 


204  CONTRAST — PREACHING   CHRIST. 

see  (says  Mr.  Finney)  how  unphilosopliical  it  is,  "while 
pressing  the  sinner  to  submission,  to  divert  his  mind 
and  turn  his  attention  to  the  subject  of  the  Spirit's 
influence.  While  his  attention  is  directed  to  that 
subject,  his  submission  is  impossible."  Sermons  on 
Important  Subjects,  p.  61.  Of  course,  those  who 
would  be  instrumental  in  converting  sinners,  must 
say  little  or  nothing  about  the  Spirit.*  And  it  is 
true,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  that  the  class  of  preachers 

*  I  have  in  my  possession  a  written  statement  communi- 
cated to  me  by  a  very  respectable  minister,  which  affords 
another  illustration  of  this  sentiment.  Says  he,  "In  the  sum- 
mer of  1832,  while  travelling  in  the  valley  of  the  Mississippi, 

I  spent  a  few  weeks  in  the  city  of  ,  and  gave  assistance, 

as  I  was  able,  by  request  of  the  pastor  in church  of  that 

place.  Unusual  attention  to  religion  existed  when  I  arrived, 
and  continued  for  some  time.  A  strong  tendency  was  mani- 
fested both  to  new  doctrines  and  new  measures.  One  evening 
when  on  the  way  to  the  church  with  the  pastor,  where  I  had 
engaged  to  preach,  Tie  requested  I  should  say  nothing  in  my 
preaching,  concerning  the  influences  of  the  Spirit,  as  he  had 
new  views  on  repentance.  He  did  not  deny  the  work  of  the 
Spirit,  but  thought  it  should  not  be  preached.  He  was  then, 
and  still  remains  a  leading  member  of  his  Synod."  To  this 
we  will  add  the  following: 

A  former  student  of  Dr.  Taylor  has  informed  me,  verbally, 
that  he  heard  Dr.  Taylor  advance  the  sentiment  in  two  differ- 
ent sermons,  "that  sinners  must  act  in  the  loork  of  conversion 
just  as  if  there  was  no  Holy  Ghost."  To  prove  the  truth  of  his 
remark,  he  alluded  to  Acts  xix.  2.  "We  have  not  so  much  as 
heard  whether  there  be  any  Holy  Ghost.''  He  had  heard, 
also,  through  others,  of  Dr.  Taylor's  advancing  the  same  senti- 
ment at  different  times ;  and  he  believed  he  was  in  the  habit  of 
doing  it  where  he  preached  a  course  of  revival  sermons. 


CONTRAST — THE   HOLY    SCRIPTURES.  205 

to  which  we  now  refer,  say  almost  as  little  about 
Christ  as  about  the  Spirit.  They  preach  much  about 
submitting  to  Grod;  but  they  seldom  exhibit  the 
second  person  of  the  Trinity,  in  his  mediatorial  cha- 
racter, and  the  duty  of  embracing  him  as  a  Saviour. 
The  apostolic  direction,  "Believe  in  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,"  is  exchanged  for  a  phraseology  which  is  cal- 
culated to  convey  the  impression  that  conversion  con- 
sists in  the  mere  choice  of  God  as  a  moral  Governor. 
This  indeed  is  Mr.  Finney's  account  of  it.  "It  [a 
change  of  heart]  is  a  change  in  the  choice  of  a  Su- 
'preme  Ruler  J'  ....  "The  world  is  divided  into 
two  great  political  parties;  the  difference  between 
them  is,  that  one  party  choose  Satan  as  the  God  of 
this  world;"  ....  "the  other  party  choose  Jehovah 
for  their  Governor."  Jesus  Christ,  as  a  distinct  per- 
son in  the  Godhead,  and  faith  in  him  as  our  Ke- 
deemer,  appear  to  have  little  to  do  in  the  process.* 

9.  The  Old  Theology  honours  the  Holy  Scriptures, 
by  drawing  its  doctrines  and  proofs  from  this  source 

*  In  the  summer  of  1834,  I  heard  a  sermon  from  Professor 
of  New  Haven.     I  do  not  recollect  that  there  was  a 


sentiment  in  it  to  which  I  took  exceptions ;  and  yet  there  was 
such  an  absence  of  what  a  Christian  desires  and  expects  to 
find,  in  a  sermon  which  professed  to  teach  us  how  we  may  ap- 
proach God  with  acceptance,  as  to  affol'd  too  much  reason  for 
the  observation  of  a  pious  and  intelligent  lady  soon  after,  viz : 
*'  that  he  kept  Christ  and  the  Holy  Spirit  so  much  out  of  view, 
she  could  not  help  thinking  that  he  was  a  deist."  This  lady 
had  not  yet  heard  the  name  or  residence  of  the  preacher;  and 
of  course  could  not  have  been  influenced  by  any  considerations 
of  this  kind. 

18 


206  CONTRAST — PHILOSOPHY. 

alone,  without  calling  in  the  aid  of  philosophy.  The 
^New  resorts  to  the  latter,  in  order  to  obtain  its  first 
(p  principles;  and  then  interprets  the  former  so  as  to 
make  them  accord  with  these  philosophical  opinions. 
This  remark,  we  are  aware,  may  be  called  in  ques- 
tion. The  leaders  in  the  New-school  party  have  had 
much  to  say  concerning  the  '' facts''  of  Scripture,  and 
have  charged  their  brethren  of  the  Old-school  with 
resorting  to  philosophy.  But  a  little  investigation  of 
this  subject,  will  show  the  statement  first  made  to  be 
strictly  true.  In  Mr.  Finney's  two  sermons  on  the 
duty  of  sinners  to  change  their  own  hearts,  he  uses 
the  words  philosophy,  philosophical,  unphilosophical, 
&c.,  at  least  fourteen  times.  He  tells  us  about  "  the 
fliilosoipliy  of  conversion,"  "the  philosophy  of  self- 
examination,"  and  "the  philosophy  of  special  efi'orts 
to  promote  revivals  of  religion."  Every  step  in  the 
change  is  brought  to  the  test  of  philosop)hy:  and  the 
failure  of  the  sinner  to  submit  to  God  is  ascribed  in] 
one  instance  to  his  not  understanding  the  fhilosophy\  /q 
of  the  process.  "  He,  therefore,  (says  he)  who  does^ 
not  understand  the  philosophy  of  this ;  who  does  not 
understand  the  use  and  power  of  attention^  the  use 
and  power  of  conscience,  and  upon  what  to  fix  his 
mind,  to  lead  him  to  a  right  decision,  will  naturally 
complain  that  he  does  not  know  how  to  submit."  The 
Scriptures  are  also  brought  forward  and  compared  by 
this  rule.  "  When  he  [Joshua]  assembled  the  people 
of  Israel  and  laid  their  duty  before  them,  and  said, 
*  choose  you  this  day  whom  ye  will  serve,'  he  did  not 
unphilosophically  remind  them  at  the  same  time  of 


CONTRAST — OBSERVATIONS.  207 

their  dependence  upon  the  Spirit  of  God."  Thus  we 
have  philosophical  preaching,  philosophical  protracted 
meetings,  philosophical  self-examination,  philosophical 
submission,  and  philosophical  conversion.  May  not 
the  result  of  the  whole  be  a  merely  philosophical  J 
christian  f  Other  proofs  which  might  be  adduced, 
from  different  writers,  we  must  leave  to  those  who 
desire  to  examine  this  subject.  *^^ 

It  may  possibly  be  said  that  we  have  given  more 
prominence  to  Mr.  Finney  than  was  proper;  since  he 
goes  further  than  most  of  his  brethren,  and  is  not, 
therefore,  a  fair  specimen  of  their  views.  We  admit 
he  has  expressed  himself  more  freely  than  perhaps 
any  one  else;  but  if  we  compare  the  quotations  made 
from  various  authors,  we  shall  perceive  they  all  belong 
to  the  same  family.  It  has  been  our  aim  both  in  our 
statements  and  quotations,  to  exhibit  the  doctrines  of 
the  New  Theology,  just  as  they  are,  without  the  least 
exaggeration.  For  this  purpose  our  extracts  from 
New-school  authors  have  been  numerous,  and  suffi- 
ciently extended  as  to  length,  to  give  a  correct  view 
of  their  sentiments.*  But  if  it  can  be  made  to  ap- 
pear that  we  have  misrepresented  their  views  in  a 
single  important  point,  we  shall  cheerfully  rectify  the 
mistake. 

^'  In  the  succeeding  chapters,  not  found  in  the  first  two  edi- 
tions, additional  facts  are  given  touching  their  views — also 
other  important  matters. 


208  MR.  Finney's  perfectionism. 


PERFECTIONISM  OF  MR.  FINNEY. 

There  is  one  extreme  into  which  Mr.  Finney  has 
fallen,  that  we  by  no  means  charge  upon  the  New 
School,  as  a  body — and  we  have  therefore  as  yet 
entirely  omitted  it.  We  mean  his  perfectionism.  In 
this  we  presume  he  has  few  followers.  We  will  how- 
ever bestow  upon  it  a  little  attention,  that  it  may 
serve  as  a  beacon  to  admonish  those  who  have  em- 
barked on  the  voyage  of  religious  discovery. 

In  his  Lectures  to  professing  Christians,  he  has  two 
on  Christian  Perfection ;  and  he  adverts  to  the  sub- 
ject in  several  others.  He  defines  perfection  in  the 
following  words :  "  It  is  to  love  the  Lord  our  God 
with  all  our  heart  and  soul  and  mind  and  strength, 
and  to  love  our  neighbour  as  ourselves."  This  he 
maintains  is  attainable  in  the  present  life.  "  1.  God 
wills  it.  2.  All  the  promises  and  prophecies  of  God 
that  respect  the  sanctification  of  believers  in  this 
world,  are  to  be  understood  of  course  of  their  perfect 
sanctification.  3.  Perfect  sanctification  is  the  great 
blessing  promised  throughout  the  Bible.  4.  The  per- 
fect sanctification  of  believers  is  the  very  object  for 
which  the  Holy  Spirit  is  promised.  5.  If  it  is  not  a 
practicable  duty  to  be  perfectly  holy  in  this  world, 
then  it  will  follow  that  the  devil  has  so  completely 
accomplished  his  design  in  corrupting  mankind,  that 
Jesus  Christ  is  at  a  fault,  and  has  no  wag  to  sanctifg 
his  peop)le,  but  to  take  them  out  of  the  world,     6.  If 


PERFECTION   IN   KNOWLEDGE.  209 

perfect  sanctification  is  not  attainable  in  this  world, 
it  must  be,  either  from  a  want  of  motives  in  the 
gospel,  or  a  want  of  sufficient  power  in  the  Spirit  of 
God." 

In  another  lecture  he  appears  to  teach  perfection 
in  knowledge  as  well  as  in  holiness ;  amounting  to  an 
illumination  little  short  of  divine  inspiration.  "  The 
manner  in  which  the  Spirit  of  God  does  this,"  says 
he,  i.  e.  communicates  ideas  to  the  mind  without  the 
use  of  words,  "is  what  we  can  never  know  in  this 
world.  But  the  fact  is  undeniable,  that  he  can  reach 
the  mind  without  the  use  of  words,  and  can  put  our 
minds  in  possession  of  the  ideas  themselves,  of  which 
the  types,  or  figures,  or  words,  of  the  human  teacher, 
are  only  the  signs  or  imperfect  representatives."  .... 
*'  The  needed  influences  of  the  Spirit  of  God  may  be 

possessed  by  all  men  freely  under  the  gospel." 

"  They  [ministers]  should  not  attempt  to  explain  pas- 
sages of  which  they  are  not  confident  they  have  been 
taught  the  meaning  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  It  is  pre- 
sumption. And  they  need  not  do  it,  for  they  may 
always  have  the  teachings  of  the  Spirit  by  asking." 

"  This  is  applicable  both  to  preachers  and 

to  teachers  in   Sabbath  schools  and  Bible  classes." 

"  Will  you  lay  your  hearts  open  to  God, 

and  not  give  him  rest,  till  he  has  filled  you  with  divine 
knowledge?'^ 

In  other  lectures  he  goes  further  still,  and  main- 
tains, if  I  understand  his  language,  that  when   the 
Christian  has  thus  given  himself  up  entirely  to  Christ, 
to  be  taught  and  governed  by  him,  he  becomes  so 
18* 


210  CHRIST   BECOMES   RESPONSIBLE. 

identified  with  Christ,  that  his  spirit  and  Christ's 
Spirit  are,  morally  considered,  one — Christ  becomes 
responsible  for  his  acts;  and  of  course  he  not  only 
ceases  from  sin,  but  he  cannot  commit  sin.  Whatever 
he  does,  Christ  is  responsible  for  it.  This  he  calls 
entering  into  rest.  "  When  one  ceases  from  his  own 
works,  he  so  perfectly  gives  up  his  own  interest  and 
his  own  will,  and  places  himself  so  perfectly  under 
the  dominion  and  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  that 
whatever  he  does  is  done  by  the  impulse  of  the  Spirit 

of  God." "  They  are  in  one  sense  our  works, 

because  we  do  them  by  our  voluntary  agency.    Yet  in 
another  sense  they  are  his  works,  because  he  is  the 

moving  cause  of  all." "He  [Christ]  is  just 

as  absolutely  your  sanctification,  as  your  justification. 
If  you  depend  upon  him  for  sanctification,  he  will  no 
more  let  you  sin  than  he  will  let  you  go  to  hell."  .... 
"  The  reputation  of  the  wife  is  wholly  united  to  that 
of  her  husband,  so  that  his  reputation  is  hers,  and  her 
reputation  is  his.  What  afi'ects  her  character  affects 
his;  and  what  afi'ects  his  character  afi'ects  hers.  Their 
reputation  is  one,  their  interests  are  one.  So  with 
the  church;  whatever  concerns  the  church  is  just  as 
much  the  interest  of  Christ,  as  if  it  was  personally  his 
own  matter."  ....  "  If  any  actions  or  civil  liability 
come  against  the  wife,  the  husband  is  responsible.  If 
the  wife  has  committed  a  trespass,  the  husband  is 
answerable.  It  is  his  business  to  guide  and  govern 
her,  and  her  business  to  obey,  and  if  he  does  not 
restrain  her  from  breaking  the  laws,  he  is  responsi- 
ble."   "In  like  manner,  Jesus  Christ  is  Lord 


MR.  pinney's  perfectionism.  211 

over  his  diurch,  and  if  he  does  not  actually  restrain 

his  church  from  sin,  he  has  it  to  answer  for." 

'^  It  is  his  business  to  take  care  of  the  church,  and 
control  her,  and  keep  her  from  sin;  and  for  every  sin 
of  every  member,  Jesus  Christ  is  responsible,  and  must 

answer." "0!  if  believers  would  only  throw 

themselves  wholly  on  Christ,  and  make  him  responsi- 
ble, by  placing  themselves  entirely  at  his  control,  they 
would  know  his  power  to  save,  and  would  live  without 
sin." 

We  have  given  these  extracts  at  some  length,  that 
those  who  have  not  access  to  his  Lectures,  may 
obtain  a  full  view  of  his  sentiments.  It  is  scarcely 
necessary  to  remark,  that  the  sentences  last  quoted 
are  Antinomian.  The  history  of  Antinomianism 
does  not  furnish  many  expressions,  more  licentious 
in  their  tendency  than  these.  This  heresy  is  more 
frequently  the  result  of  an  abuse  of  the  doctrines  of 
grace ;  but  in  the  present  instance,  it  appears  to  have 
originated  in  an  opposite  cause,  viz:  in  those  views 
of  human  ability,  which  render  grace  in  a  measure 
superfluous.*     "There  is,"  says  he,  "no  more  moral 

*  It  is  supposed  by  some  that  there  is  no  logical  connection 
between  Mr.  Finney's  former  and  present  views — but  that  ho 
has  got  upon  a  new  track.  Formerly,  as  one  observes,  '*  he 
left  Christ  and  the  Holy  Spirit  almost  out  of  view ;  he  hardly 
preached  the  gospel  at  all;  but  now  Christ  and  the  Holy  Spirit 
are  every  thing.  He  pushes  union  with  Christ,  imputation, 
covenant  relation,  &c.,  into  Antinomianism.^'  The  only  con- 
nection, he  says,  between  the  latter  and  his  Pelagianism,  is 
that  he  "is  a  fanatic  now  as  he  was  before.^'  But  as  others 
think  differently,  we  shall  state  the  probable  process  by  which 


212  MR.  FINNEY^ S   PERFECTIONISM. 

inability  to  be  'perfectly  holy,  than  there  is  to  be  holy 
at  all."  On  the  same  principle,  therefore,  that  he 
could  preach  to  the  sinner  the  practicability  of  chang- 
ing his  own  heart,  he  might  argue  that  the  Christian 
can  arrive  at  perfect  holiness  in  this  life.  He  actually 
adopts  the  same  mode  of  reasoning  in  both  cases.  It 
is  therefore  very  natural  to  conclude,  that  the  frequent 
discussion  of  the  subject  of  ability  in  reference  to  the 
sinner,  had  much  to  do  in  forming  his  opinions  with 
regard  to  Christian  perfection.  Having  arrived  at 
this  point,  he  applied  his  ideas  of  perfection,  not  only 
to  our  sanctification,  but  to  all  our  relations  to  God. 
In  a  lecture  from  the  text,  "  Who  of  God  is  made 
unto  us  wisdom,  and  righteousness,  and  sanctification, 
and  redemption;"  he  considers  each  of  the  terms  as 
conveying  an  idea  equally  expressive.  Since  then, 
according  to  the  views  which  he  had  previously 
adopted,  sanctification  was  to  be  taken  as  implying 
perfect  holiness,  the  perfectibility  of  wisdom  would 
seem  to  follow  as  a  consequence.  Hence  he  says  in 
regard  to  this,  "  As  he  [Christ]  is  the  infinite  source 
of  wisdom,  how  can  it  be  said  that  he  is  made  unto  us 
wisdom,  unless  we  are  partakers  of  his  wisdom,  and 
have  it  guarantied  to  us ;  so  that,  at  any  time,  if  we 
trust  in  him,  we  may  have  it  as  certainly,  and  in  any 
degree  we  need,  to  guide  us  as  infallibly,  as  if  we  had 

it  is  supposed  he  was  led  into  these  errors.  Yet  whether  they 
are  the  "logical  sequence''  of  his  former  views  or  not,  they 
furnish  an  instructive  lesson  to  those  who  are  disposed  to 
countenance  error. 


PERFECTIONISM.  213 

it  originally  ourselves?"     Thus  we  are  brought  into 
the  field  of  fanaticism. 

The  only  condition  required  in  order  to  obtain 
either  wisdom  or  sanctification,  is  faith.  "  The  act  of 
the  mind,  says  he,  that  thus  throws  the  soul  into  the 
hand  of  Christ  for  sanctification,  is  faith.  Nothing  is 
wanting,  but  for  the  mind  to  break  off  from  any  confi- 
dence in  itself,  and  to  give  itself  up  to  hica,  to  be  led 
and  controlled  by  him  absolutely."  Then  Christ 
asumes  the  responsibility ;  he  undertakes  to  do  all  for 
him  that  he  needs;  he  becomes  accountable  for  his 
conduct.  Says  he,  "Until  an  individual  receives 
Christ,  he  does  not  cease  from  his  own  works.  The 
moment  he  does  that,  by  this  very  act  he  throws  the 
entire  responsibility  upon  Christ.  The  moment  the 
mind  does  fairly  yield  itself  up  to  Christ,  the  respon- 
sibility comes  upon  him,  just  as  the  person  who  under- 
takes to  conduct  the  blind  man  is  responsible  for  his 
safe  conduct.  The  believer  by  the  act  of  faith  pledges 
Christ  for  his  obedience  and  sanctification.  By  giving 
himself  up  to  Christ,  all  the  veracity  of  the  Godhead  : 
is  put  at  stake,  that  he  shall  be  led  aright,  or  made 
Toly."  Here  we  have  the  final  result  of  the  whole 
process.  By  the  proper  exercise  of  our  free  will,  we 
can  first  change  our  own  hearts,  or  in  other  words, 
put  forth  the  "act"  of  saving  faith  upon  Jesus  Christ. 
By  the  proper  exercise  of  the  same  free  will,  we  can 
put  forth  a  stronger  "act"  of  faith,  and  make  him  our 
wisdom  and  sanctification : — our  wisdom,  in  such  a 
sense,  that  he  will  "guide  us  infallibly,  as  if  we  had 
it  originally  ourselves:" — and  our  sanctification,  so 


214       EXTRACT   FROM   THE   THEOLOGICAL   REVIEW. 

entire  and  absolute,  that  Christ  becomes  responsible 
ffor  our  conduct,  and  ''if  he  does  not  restrain  us  from 
[sin,  he  has  it  to  answer  for." 

In  the  March  number  of  the  Literary  and  Theolo- 
gical Review  for  the  year  1838,  there  is  an  able  arti- 
cle on  this  subject,  from  which  we  will  make  the  fol- 
lowing extract.  "  In  the  works  before  us  [referring 
to  Mr.  Finney's  Sermons  and  Lectures,]  we  have  an 
authentic  genealogy  of  o,  family  of  errors.  We  are 
not  obliged,  as  in  other  instances,  to  trace  them 
through  successive  generations  of  men.  They  are  all 
found  in  the  same  mind,  and  Pelagianism^  as  con- 
tained in  the  preceding  extracts,  is  the  venerable 
ancestor  of  them  all.  From  his  infancy  it  was  re- 
marked that  he  was  an  uncommon  child.  Unlike 
other  children,  he  was  by  nature  neither  '  sinful  nor 
holy.'  Unhappily,  however,  very  soon  after  his  birth, 
he  'fell  into  a  state  of  supreme  selfishness,'  from 
which  even  the  '  physical  power  of  God'  could  not 
extricate  him.  But  he  had  rare  abilities,  and  a 
*  giant  strength'  of  will,  which  he  could  hardly  re- 
frain from  calling  '  the  strength  of  Omnipotence,' 
And  therefore,  he  always  believed  himself  to  be  one 
of  those  who  could  be  recovered  'with  the  wisest 
amount  of  moral  influence.'  He  had  elevated  notions 
of  human  virtue,  and  would  suffer  no  change  to  be 
made  in  his  condition,  which  was  not  produced  by 
'his  own  act.'  He  was  willing,  indeed,  that  the  Holy 
Spirit  should  operate  on  him,  provided  it  were  only 
as  an  earthly  advocate  acts  on  a  jury.  He  was  willing 
that  '  motives  should  he  gathered  from  all  worlds  and 


PERFECTIONISM   OF    MR.    FINNEY.  215 

'poured  in  a  focal  blaze  on  Ms  mind.'  He  was  anx- 
ious to  receive  good  counsel  from  Ms  friends,  and  reve- 
rently to  hear  divine  truth;  but  the  change  from 
^supreme  selfishness'  he  declared  to  be  his  own  'ap- 
propriate work;'  and  he  was  at  length  accustomed  to 
say,  that  he  had  effected  it  by  '■Ms  own  act.'  It  was 
natural  to  suppose,  that  the  theological  children  of 
such  a  system  would  have  some  remarkable  charac- 
teristics. In  Pelagius  and  Coelestius  it  had  produced 
Perfectionism,  and  there  was  reason  to  fear  that  in 
the  mind  of  Mr.  Finney  it  would  generate  the  same 
progeny.  In  various  parts  of  the  land  the  system 
had  been  earnestly  inculcated.  Its  most  sagacious 
disciples  were  beginning  to  declare  themselves  to  ^  he] 
jperfect^'  to  have  ''rolled  the  responsibility  of  their, 
future  and  eternal  obedience  on  an  everlasting  arm;*\ 
to  receive  'immediate  communications  from  God;'  to 
be  'personally  united  to  Mm^'  and  have  ''entered 
into  rest.'  " 

These  heresies  were  early  demonstrated  to  have 
had  their  origin  in  the  system  itself.  As  Mr.  Fin- 
ney had  been  the  Apostle  of  this  system  in  these 
latter  days,  it  was  intimated  that  his  doctrines,  as 
inculcated  in  his  preaching  and  by  the  press,  had 
tended  to  produce  these  impieties.  This  view  of  the 
subject  was  indignantly  repelled  even  by  the  candid 
ones  among  his  followers.  The  thought  that  his  doc- 
trines had  produced  such  results,  they  could  not  for  a 
moment  entertain.  Although  others  had  no  doubt 
that  Mr.  Finney  was  the  true  parent  of  Perfectionism, 
they  had  more  opinion  of  his  caution,  than  to  sup- 


216  LITERARY   AND   THEOLOGICAL   REVIEW. 

pose  he  could  soon  be  induced  openly  to  own  and 
adopt  it.     But,  to  the  amazement  of  all,  he  now  comes 
forth,  bringing  with  him  for  induction  into  the  church, 
the  doctrine  of  the  perfection  of  the  saints  in  this  life,, 
of  the  responsihility  of  Christ  for  his  people^  of  imme- 
diate communications  to  them  from  Grod,  and  of  their 
entrance  into  rest  even  in  this  tvorld.    These  last  views 
were  not  developed  till  he  had  abandoned  the  Presby- 
terian  Church.     Ever  since   their  publication,  it   is 
almost  inconceivable  by  those  "vvho  have  heard  of  him 
chiefly  as  a  promoter  of  revivals,  and  have  been  un- 
willing to  listen  to  the  notes  of  warning,   so  long 
honestly  and  responsively  sounded  by  individuals — it 
is  almost  inconceivable,  that  he  has  inculcated  these 
fanatical  doctrines.     Even  the  Christian  Spectator, 
though  it  fears  "  he  may  be  liable  to  misconstruction, 
and  injure  the  consciences  of  many  weak  and  pious 
persons,"  declares,  "we  do  not  believe  he  means  any 
thing  more  than  we  should  fully  admit — the  possibility 
and  duty  of  obedience  to  God  in  all  things  command- 
ed."    But  this  view  of  his  meaning  it  is  impossible  to 
sustain,  either  by  individual  sentences,  or  the  evident 
design  of  his  Lectures  on  these  subjects.     His  errors 
are  written  so  legibly,  that  he  who  runs  may  read.    Mr. 
Finney  now  stands  before  the  community  as  a  practi- 
cal illustration  of  the  effects  of  rejecting  the  doctrine, 
that  human  nature  is  depraved:  and  of  believing,  that 
in  regeneration  and   sanctification,  the  word  of  the 
Spirit  is  confined  chiefly  to  the  understanding. 


MEASURES   OP   THE   GENERAL   ASSEMBLY.  217 


CHAPTER  X. 

THE  MEASURES  ADOPTED  BY  THE  GENERAL  ASSEMBLY  FOR  REMOVING 
THESE  ERRORS   FROM  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCH. 

On  the  supposition  that  the  errors  specified  in  the 
preceding  chapters  were  prevalent  in  any  portion  of 
the  Presbyterian  Church,  it  is  no  wonder  that  many 
should  feel  alarmed.  Some  of  these  doctrines  had 
been  made  the  ground  of  discipline  at  different  times 
before  this  period.  In  1798,  the  case  of  Rev.  H. 
Balch  came  before  the  Assembly,  by  way  of  refer- 
ence from  the  Synod  of  the  Carolinas.  The  follow- 
ing is  a  part  of  the  minutes  of  the  Assembly  on  this 
subject :  "  With  regard  to  his  doctrine  of  original 
sin,  it  is  to  be  observed,  that  he  is  erroneous  in  re- 
presenting personal  corruption  as  not  derived  from 
Adam ;  making  Adam's  sin  to  be  imputed  to  his 
posterity,  in  consequence  of  a  corrupt  nature  already 
possessed,  and  derived  from,  we  know  not  what ;  thus 
in  effect  setting  aside  the  idea  of  Adam's  being  the 
federal  head,  or  representative,  of  his  descendants, 
and  the  whole  doctrine  of  the  covenant  of  works." 

"It  is  also  manifest  that  Mr.  B.  is  greatly  errone- 
ous, in  asserting  that  the  formal  cause  of  a  believer's 
justification  is  the  imputation  of  the  fruits  and  effects 
of  Christ's  righteousness,  and  not  that  righteousness 
itself;  because  righteousness,  and  that  alone,  is  the 
formal  demand  of  the  law,  and  consequently  the  sin- 
ner's violation  of  the  divine  law  can  be  pardoned  only 
by  virtue  of  the  Redeemer's  perfect  righteousness 
19 


218     MEASURES  OF  THE  GENERAL  ASSEMBLY. 

being  imputed  to  Mm  and  reckoned  as  his.  It  is  also 
not  true  that  the  benefits  of  Christ's  righteousness  are, 
"with  strict  propriety,  said  to  be  imputed  at  all,  as 
these  benefits  floiv  to,  and  are  'possessed  hy,  the  be- 
liever, as  a  co7isequence  of  his  justification  and  having 
an  interest  in  the  infinite  merits  of  the  Saviour." 

In  1810,  a  work  of  the  Rev.  William  C.  Davis,  en- 
titled the  "  Gospel  Plan,"  came  before  the  Assembly, 
by  an  overture  from  the  Synod  of  the  Carolinas. 
Among  the  doctrines  contained  in  the  book,  of  an  ex- 
ceptionable character,  and  which  the  Assembly  con- 
demned, are  the  following :  "  That  the  active  obedi- 
ence of  Christ  constitutes  no  part  of  that  righteousness 
by  which  a  sinner  is  justified;"  that  "God  could  not 
make  Adam,  or  any  other  creature,  either  holy  or  un- 
holy;" and  that  "if  God  has  to  plant  all  the  princi- 
pal parts  of  salvation  in  a  sinner's  heart,  to  enable 
him  to  believe,  the  gospel  plan  is  quite  out  of  his 
reach,  and  consequently  does  not  suit  his  case ;  and 
it  must  be  impossible  for  God  to  condemn  a  man  for 
unbelief,  for  no  just  law  condemns  or  criminates  any 
person  for  not  doing  what  he  cannot  do."  Concern- 
ing these  doctrines  the  Assembly  resolved  that  they 
are  "  contrary  to  the  Confession  of  Faith  of  our 
chmcli:'— Assembly's  Digest,  pp.  130,  145, 146, 14T. 

The  first  of  these  cases  was  adjudicated  ten  years, 
and  the  second  twenty-two  years,  after  the  organization 
of  the  General  Assembly;  and  they  show  that  for 
twenty-two  years  after  that  event,  those  doctrines 
which  led  to  the  division  of  tiiO  church  in  1837, 
were  regarded  and  treated  as  heretical  and  danger- 


THE   ADOPTING   ACT.  219 

ous.  They  serve  also  as  a  key  to  the  received  inter- 
pretation of  the  Confession  of  Faith  prior  to  that 
period,  and  to  the  proper  understanding  of  the  famous 
"Adopting  Act"  of  1729. 

CHARACTER    OF    THE    ADOPTING    ACT. 

The  act  denomifiated  the  "Adopting  Act,"  which 
was  unanimously  agreed  to  by  the  Synod  of  Philadel- 
phia, in  1729,  required  "  that  all  the  ministers  of  this 
Synod,  or  that  shall  hereafter  be  admitted  to  this 
Synod,  shall  declare  their  agreement  in  and  approba- 
tion of  the  Confession  of  Faith,  with  the  Larger  and 
Shorter  Catechisms  of  the  Assembly  of  Divines  at 
Westminster,  as  being,  in  all  essential  and  necessary 
articles,  good  forms  and  sound  words,  and  systems  of 
Christian  doctrine;  and  [we]  do  also  adopt  the  said 
Confession  of  Faith  and  Catechisms  as  the  confession 
of  our  faith.  And  we  do  also  agree  that  the  Presby- 
teries within  our  bounds  shall  always  take  care  not  to 
admit  any  candidate  for  the  ministry  into  the  exercise 
of  the  sacred  functions,  but  what  declares  his  agree- 
ment in  opinion  with  all  essential  and  necessary  arti- 
cles of  said  Confession,  either  by  subscribing  the  said 
Confession  of  Faith  and  Catechisms,  or  by  verbal 
declaration  of  his  assent  thereto,  as  such  minister  or 
candidate  shall  think  best.  And  in  case  any  minister 
of  this  Synod,  or  any  candidate  for  the  ministry,  shall 
have  any  scruples  with  regard  to  any  article  or  arti- 
cles of  said  Confession  of  Faith  or  Catechisms,  he 
shall,  at  the  time  of  his  making  such  declaration,  de- 
clare his  sentiments  to  the  Presbytery  or  Synod,  who 


220  THE   ADOPTING   ACT. 

sliall,  notwithstanding,  admit  him  to  the  exercise  of 
the  ministry  within  our  bounds,  and  to  ministerial 
communion,  if  either  the  Presbytery  or  Synod  shall 
judge  his  scruples  or  mistakes  to  be  only  about  arti- 
cles not  essential  and  necessary  in  doctrine,  worship, 
or  government." 

This  provision  appears  to  be  understood  by  some  of 
our  New-school  brethren  as  giving  so  wide  a  latitude 
for  diversity  of  sentiment,  that,  in  their  opinion,  it 
was  only  by  a  departure  from  the  design  and  spirit  of 
that  instrument,  and  the  introduction  into  the  church 
of  a  narrow  and  intolerant  spirit,  that  the  new  theo- 
logy was  not  allowed  to  remain  quietly,  and  spread 
itself  throughout  our  bounds.  How  utterly  unfound- 
ed this  opinion  is,  will  appear  from  the  manner  in 
which  the  Synod  carried  the  ^^Adopting  Act"  into 
effect.  On  the  same  day  in  which  it  was  passed,  all 
the  ministers  present,  except  one  who  was  not  then 
prepared,  but  who  subsequently  acceded  to  the  reso- 
lution, "  after  proposing  all  the  scruples  that  any  of 
them  had  to  make  against  any  articles  and  expressions 
in  the  Confession  of  Faith,  and  Larger  and  Shorter 
Catechisms  of  the  Assembly  of  Divines  at  Westminster, 
unanimously  agreed  in  the  solution  of  those  scruples, 
and  in  declaring  the  said  Confession  and  Catechisms  to 
be  the  confession  of  their  faith,  excepting  only  some 
clauses  in  the  twentieth  and  twenty-third  chapters, 
concerning  which  clauses  the  Synod  unanimously  de- 
clared that  they  did  not  receive  those  articles  in  any 
such  sense  as  to  suppose  the  civil  magistrate  hath  a 
controlling  power  over  Synods,  with  respect  to  the 


THE   ADOPTING   ACT.  221 

exercise  of  their  ministerial  authority,  or  power  to 
persecute  any  for  their  religion,  or  in  any  sense  con- 
trary to  the  Protestant  succession  to  the  throne  of 
Great  Britain." 

The  following  year,  and  again  in  1736,  the  Synod 
adopted  a  resolution  explanatory  of  their  former 
action.  In  the  latter  they  say,  ''  that  the  Synod  have 
adopted  and  still  do  adhere  to  the  AVestminster  Con- 
fession, Catechisms,  and  Directory,  without  the  le.ast 
variation  or  alteration." "And  we  do  fur- 
ther declare  this  was  our  meaning  and  true  intent  in 
our  j&rst  adopting  of  the  said  Confession." 

In  1741  a  schism  took  place,  by  which  two  Synods 
were  formed,  and  an  unhapj^y  alienation  existed  be- 
tween them  for  seventeen  years.  During  this  separa- 
tion both  parties  adopted  resolutions  to  the  effect  that 
they  adhered  "to  the  Westminster  Confession  of 
Faith,  Catechisms,  and  Directory,  without  the  least 
variation  or  alteration,"  agreeably  to  the  action  of 
the  Synod  in  1729 — and  neither  party  charged  the 
other  with  practising  or  desiring  any  unwarranted 
latitude  of  interpretation.  The  division  did  not  origi- 
nate in  doctrinal  differences.  Hence,  when  the  over- 
ture was  made  for  a  re-union,  the  Synod  of  New  York 
say  to  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia,  "We  esteem  mutual 
forbearance  a  duty,  since  we  all  profess  the  same 
Confession  of  Faith  and  Directory."  The  latter 
Synod,  in  reply  to  the  former,  employed  similar  lan- 
guage. "Upon  these  terms  (viz.  the  terms  specified 
in  their  letter)  we  heartily  agree  with  the  Synod  of 
New  York,  that  since  we  profess  the  same  Confession 
19* 


222  THE   ADOPTING   ACT. 

of  Faith  and  Directory  for  worship,  all  our  former 
differences  be  buried  in  perpetual  oblivion."  Accord- 
ingly, one  of  the  terms  of  union  unanimously  adopted 
by  the  two  bodies  was  the  following :  "  Both  Synods 
having  always  approved  and  received  the  Westminster 
Confession  of  Faith,  Larger  and  Shorter  Catechisms, 
as  an  orthodox  and  excellent  system  of  Christian  doc- 
trine, founded  upon  the  word  of  God,  we  do  still 
receive  the  same  as  the  confession  of  our  faith,  and 
also  adhere  to  the  plan  of  worship,  government,  and 
discipline,  contained  ^in  the  Westminster  Directory: 
strictly  enjoining  it  on  all  our  ministers  and  proba- 
tioners for  the  ministry,  that  they  preach  and  teach 
according  to  the  form  of  sound  words  in  the  said  Con- 
fession and  Catechisms,  and  avoid  and  oppose  all 
errors  contrary  thereto." 

In  1786,  two  years  before  the  organization  of  the 
General  Assembly,  a  plan  of  union  was  proposed  be- 
tween the  Presbyterian,  Dutch,  and  Associate  Re- 
formed Churches.  The  committee  on  the  part  of  the 
Synod  of  New  York  and  Philadelphia,  were  instructed 
to  say,  that  the  Synod  "  adopt,  according  to  the  known 
and  established  meaning  of  terms,  the  Westminster 
Confession  of  Faith  as  the  confession  of  their  faith, 
save  that  every  candidate  for  the  gospel  ministry  is 
permitted  to  except  against  so  much  of  the  twenty- 
third  chapter  as  gives  authority  to  the  civil  magistrate 
in  matters  of  religion."  For  a  full  account  of  the 
Adopting  Act,  see  Hodge  s  Constitutional  History  of 
the  Preshyterian  Church,  Vol.  i..  Chap.  iii. 

From  these  several  particulars,  it  is  very  evident 


THE  ADOPTING   ACT.  223 

that  the  liberty  granted  in  the  Adopting  Act,  to  any 
minister  or  candidate,  to  state  his  "scruples  with 
regard  to  any  article  or  articles  of  the  Confession  of 
Faith  and  Catechisms,"  and  that  he  should  be  ad- 
mitted "to  the  exercise  of  the  ministry,"  if  either  the 
Presbytery  or  Synod  shall  judge  his  scruples  or  mis- 
takes to  be  only  about  articles  not  essential  and  neces- 
sary in  doctrine,  worship,  or  government,"  was  re- 
stricted practically  to  a  very  few  things ;  and  that 
with  regard  to  these  and  all  others,  the  scruples  of 
the  minister  or  candidate  were  not  be  confined  to  his 
own  breast,  nor  even  stated  in  general  terms,  but  par- 
ticularized before  the  Presbytery  or  Synod ;  and  that 
his  brethren  were  to  judge,  not  the  applicant  himself, 
whether  his  scruples  or  mistakes  were  a  valid  bar  to 
his  reception  as  a  member.  How  widely  different  from 
this,  is  that  mode  of  assenting  to  the  Confession  of 
Faith,  which  professes  to  receive  it  only  for  "  substance 
of  doctrine,"  and  which  requires  of  the  candidate  no 
statement  of  his  "scruples"  to  the  Presbytery,  but 
loaves  it  wholly  to  his  own  decision  whether  they  are 
such  as  are  "essential  and  necessary,"  or  otherwise. 
It  is  evident,  from  the  cases  adjudicated  by  the  As- 
sembly in  1798  and  1810,  already  referred  to,  that 
that  body  did  not  so  understand  the  "Adopting  Act," 
as  to  allow  this  mode  of  receiving  the  Confession  of 
Faith,  nor  interpret  it  in  such  a  manner  as  to  permit 
the  new  theology  to  exist  in  the  church  without  cen- 
sure. They  arraigned  and  condemned  some  of  those 
very  errors  which  have  been  enumerated  in  the  pre- 
ceding chapters — and  in  doing  this  they  did  not  de- 


224  PREVALENCE   OF   ERRORS. 

part  in  the  least  from  tlie  provisions  of  tlie  "Adopting 
Act,"  nor  from  the  views  expressed  concerning  it  by 
successive  Synods,  up  to  the  time  of  the  formation  of  the 
General  Assembly — but  were  carrying  out  those  views 
in  the  way  which  had  been  definitely  stipulated  and 
agreed  to,  by  the  articles  of  union  between  the  Synods 
of  New  York  and  Philadelphia,  in  1758,  viz  :  "  strict- 
ly enjoining  it  on  all  their  ministers  and  probationers 
for  the  ministry,  that  they  preach  and  teach  accord- 
ing to  the  form  of  sound  words  in  the  said  Confession 
and  Catechisms,  and  avoid  and  oppose  all  errors  con- 
trary thereto." 

PREVALENCE    OF   ERRORS. 

The  question  now  arises,  did  those  errors  prevail  in 
the  bounds  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  for  some  years 
prior  to  1837  ?  and  if  so,  to  w4iat  extent  ?  The 
answer  is  found  partly  in  the  statements  contained  in 
the  preceding  chapters.  But  as  the  action  of  the 
Assembly,  at  that  time,  was  directed  chiefly  towards 
the  three  Synods  of  Western  New  York,  and  the  Sy- 
nod of  the  Western  Reserve,  it  will  be  proper  to  state 
some  facts  with  special  reference  to  them. 

At  the  Auburn  Convention,  in  1837,  (composed  of 
ministers  and  elders  called  together  to  consider  the 
Assembly's  acts,)  a  distinguished  member  observed, 
that  "he  must  say  there  had  been  hitherto  a  disposi- 
tion to  conceal ;  that  errors  and  irregularities  in  this 
section  of  the  church  have  been  greater  than  we 
have  been  willing  to  acknowledge."  At  the  same 
meeting  the  committee  on  doctrines  reported  a  paper 


PREVALENCE    OF   ERRORS.  225 

similar  in  its  statements  to  one  agreed  upon  in  1797, 
by  a  committee  of  the  Presbyterian,  Reformed  Dutch, 
and  Associate  Reformed  Churches,  as  the  basis  of  an 
agreement  for  uniting  in  sending  missionaries  to  the 
new  settlements  ;  accompanied  by  a  list  of  errors,  the 
same  as  those  specified  by  the  preceding  General  As- 
sembly. One  member  proposed,  as  a  substitute  for 
the  paper,  the  protest  of  the  minority  of  the  preced- 
ing Assembly.  A  second  did  not  think  that  some  of 
the  errors  there  specified  were  fundamental,  and  he 
could  not,  therefore,  solemnly  pledge  himself  (as  the 
report  recommended)  to  discipline  those  whom  he 
might  know  to  hold  them.  A  third  said,  he  was  per- 
suaded that  the  Convention  could  not  agree,  either 
in  the  statement  of  doctrine  in  detail  made  in  the  re- 
port of  the  committee,  or  in  that  of  the  protestants 
in  the  last  Assembly.  A  fourth  expressed  his  concur- 
rence with  the  one  last  referred  to,  and  proposed 
that  they  should  adopt  the  first  part  of  the  report 
of  the  committee  without  going  into  detail ;  which  was 
accordingly  done. 

During  the  discussion  of  the  above  report,  a  pro- 
minent elder  objected  to  the  report,  because  some  of  the 
errors  there  specified  he  did  not  consider  to  be  errors — 
for  example,  he  did  not  believe  that  Adam's  sin  was 
imputed  to  his  posterity.  He  was  satisfied  they  never 
could  agree  on  any  creed  as  extensive  as  this ;  while 
we  agree  in  substantials,  we  cannot  agree  in  minor 
points;  here  every  man  must  be  allowed  to  have 
his  own  creed.  This  is  the  fault  of  our  Confession  of 
Faith — it  is  too  extensive  for  agreement.     State  a 


226  PREVALENCE   OF   ERRORS. 

few  general  points  involving  that  we  are  sinners  and 
are  saved  by  the  grace  of  God,  through  Jesus  Christ 
and  the  agency  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  we  can  agree  ; 
but  Avhen  you  come  to  speak  of  the  quo  modo  we  can- 
not be  expected  to  agree.  We  have  a  right  to  differ ; 
if  we  agree  on  these  points,  woe  to  him  who  pro- 
nounces such  men  heretics — we  must  have  the  right 
of  private  judgment.  There  are  two  opposite  doc- 
trines in  the  church ;  I  can  agree  to  receive  as  Chris- 
tians those  who  hold  to  either,  and  sit  under  their 
ministry,  though  I  differ  from  some  of  them.  There 
are  some  who  hold  that  we  are  born  sinners  before  we 
arrive  at  moral  agency;  and  they  carry  out  the  sys- 
tem to  Antinomianism.  Others  hold  God  to  be  a  moral 
governor,  who  governs  man  in  a  manner  analogous  to 
"what  is  done  in  other  governments.  They  are  both 
substantially  true — both  contain  the  gospel,  yet  they 
are  opposite." 

Another  member  of  the  Convention  (a  minister) 
observed  to  me,  in  private  conversation,  "  We  are  so 
trammelled  and  shackled,  and  under  tyranny  by  Con- 
fessions of  Faith,  that  if  we  advance  any  thing  new, 
we  are  suspected  of  heresy.  We  ought  to  be  making 
improvements  in  theology  as  much  as  in  other  mat- 
ters." While,  therefore,  he  would  have  a  Confession 
of  Faith,  it  should  not  be  a  permanent  and  fixed 
one,  but  subject  to  be  modified  with  every  additional 
light  that  should  be  thrown  on  the  subject.  Every 
minister,  every  church,  and  every  Presbytery,  should 
write  a  new  confession  of  faith  as  often  as  once  a 
year,  and  then,  by  comparing  it  with  the  old,  see  what 


PREVALENCE   OF   EP.ROHS.  227 

changes  (if  any)  were  necessary  to  be  made.  I  asked 
him  whether  he  would  not  recommend  the  same  course 
to  the  General  Assembly,  and  have  our  Confession  of 
Faith  undergo  a  revision.  He  said  he  thought  it 
ought  to  be  altered  in  a  number  of  particulars.  I 
asked  him  how  he  could  adopt  it  while  entertaining 
such  views.  He  replied,  ^'I  adopt  it  only  as  a  system^ 
without  intending  to  subscribe  to  the  whole  of  it. 
As  a  system  I  believe  it ;  and  provided  I  hold  doc- 
trines belonging  'peculiarly  to  another  system — such 
as  Arminian  or  Pelagian — I  could  not  consistently,  I 
confess,  adopt  the  Confession,  unless  I  stated  my 
exceptions  at  the  time  of  adopting  it.  When  I 
first  adopted  it,  I  entertained  different  views  on  seve- 
ral points  from  what  I  do  now,  viz :  atonement,  the 
moral  government  of  God,  imputation,  and  original 
sin — but  I  believe  I  am  as  near  the  Confession  now 
as  I  was  then.  I  believe  suhstantially  as  I  did  then, 
and  I  suppose  that  all  the  changes  which  might  bo 
required  from  time  to  time,  with  the  addition  of  new 
light,  would  not  alter  it  so  as  to  make  it  another  sys- 
tem. When  it  was  written,  a  different  philosophy 
prevailed  from  what  does  now — a  false  philosophy — 
through  which  some  expressions  were  introduced  into 
the  Confession  which  are  not  true — e,  g.  '  sinned  in 
him  and  fell  with  him  in  his  first  transgression' — 
which  conveys  a  false  idea."  Do  you  mean,  said  I, 
that  it  contains  a  false  idea,  as  the  framers  of  the 
Confession  understood  it?  "Yes,  he  said,  as  they  un- 
derstood it.  Their  philosophy  was  false — they  held 
that  we  were  really  there  in  the  garden,  and    par- 


228  PREVALENCE    OF   ERRORS. 

took  of  the  forbidden  fruit ;  he  would,  therefore,  have 
this  clause  altered  so  as  to  make  it  accord  with  modern 
philosophy.*  On  the  subject  of  God's  moral  govern- 
ment, he  thought  the  Confession  defective — he  would 
have  a  whole  chapter  added  on  this  subject."  This  is 
a  specimen  of  a  conversation  which  was  continued  in 
a  similar  strain  for  half  an  hour. 

After  these  statements  the  reader  will  not  be  sur- 
prised that  the  report  of  the  committee  on  doctrine 
was  amended,  by  expunging  from  it  "all  the  details" 
both  of  what  the  Convention  believed,  and  what  they 
regarded  as  errors.  The  paper  as  adopted  was  good 
as  far  as  it  went,  but  it  was  brief,  and  expressed  in 
general  terms.  Some  of  the  members  would  have 
been  glad  to  adopt  the  report  without  alteration  or 
abridgment,  but  they  were  overruled  by  others  who 
thought  differently.  How  many  of  them  actually 
entertained  the  views  narrated  above,  I  cannot  say; 

*  A  similar  caricature  of  Old-school  views  has  been  recently 
put  forth,  in  a  volume  published  by  a  committee  of  the  Synod 
of  New  York  and  New  Jersey.  "  Some  of  them  believe  in  the 
identity  of  the  posterity  of  Adam  with  him  in  his  first  trans- 
gression ;  others,  that  there  was  a  literal  transfer  of  his  sin  to 
them,  as  also  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ  to  his  people."  We 
presume  it  will  not  be  pretended  that  any  portion  of  the  church 
since  the  beginning  of  the  present  century,  have  gone  further 
in  maintaining  these  phases  of  doctrine  than  was  done  previous 
to  that  time.  In  the  case  adjudicated  by  the  General  Assembly 
in  1798,  already  noticed  in  this  chapter,  the  Assembly  say, 
"that  the  transferring  of  personal  sin  or  righteousness  has 
never  been  held  by  Calvinistic  divines,  nor  by  any  person  in 
our  church,  as  far  as  is  known  to  us.'' 


PREVALENCE    OP   ERRORS.  229 

but  I  have  reason  for  believing  that  those  two  were 
not  the  only  ones — and  also  that  there  were  min- 
isters and  laymen  in  considerable  numbers,  belonging 
to  those  Synods,  but  not  present  at  the  Convention, 
whose  theology  was  of  the  same  stamp.  In  a  letter, 
understood  to  have  been  written  by  a  member  of  the 
Synod  of  Geneva,  and  published  in  the  Hartford 
Christian  Watchman,  soon  after  the  meeting  of  the 
General  Assembly  in  1837,  the  writer  states:  "I 
declared  more  than  once  before  the  Assembly,  that 
the  errors  against  which  the  Convention  testified,  do 
exist" — meaning  the  Convention  which  had  been  sit- 
ting for  several  days  previous  in  Philadelphia.  An- 
other minister  belonging  to  that  Synod,  wrote  the 
same  year  to  the  author  of  this  volume:  "A  conside- 
rable number  of  members,  and  two  ministers  (alluding 
to  his  own  Presbytery),  incline  strongly  to  Taylor- 
ism — I  should  say  are  Taylorites — more  are  not  sound 
Calvinists  of  the  Edwards  stamp.  Our  theology  has 
many  shades."  From  personal  intercourse  with  dif- 
ferent ministers  in  the  Synod  of  Utica,  and  from 
other  reliable  testimony,  I  am  warranted  in  saying 
that  some  of  the  ministers  in  each  of  the  Presbyteries 
connected  with  that  Synod,  from  1830  to  1837,  em- 
braced the  New  Haven  Theology ;  and  that  it  pre- 
vailed to  a  considerable  extent  in  their  churches.  A 
letter  now  in  my  possession,  written  by  one  of  their 
ministers  in  1833,  to  a  clerical  friend,  contains  the 
following :  "  0  my  dear  brother,  beware  of  that  doc- 
trine of  a  limited  atonement.  I  hope  I  do  not  go  too 
far,  when  I  say  it  had  its  rise  from  the  devil."  .  .  . 
20 


230  PREVALENCE   OF   ERRORS. 

.  .  .  *'  It  is  astonishing,  that  at  the  present  day  of 
light  and  knowledge,  men's  understandings  should  be 
so  blinded.     For  my  part^  I  am  awfully  prejudiced 

against  the  Old-school  divinity." "I  want 

you  candidly  to  answer  the  following  questions.  Do 
you  believe  infants  have  a  moral  character  ?  Are  we 
to  be  accountable  for  the  moral  act  of  our  first  pa- 
rents? What  do  you  think  of  the  New  Haven  Theo- 
logy? Do  you  acquiesce  in  Dr.  Taylor's  notions? 
Do  you  consider  them  agreeable  with  the  Scriptures  ? 
Mis  divinity  is  spreading  very  widely ^  .  .  .  .  "I  am 

really  glad  that  — • has  commenced  his  studies." 

.  .  .  .  "I  hope  he  will  not  imbibe  the  principles  of 
the  Princeton  Divinity." 

A  minister  in  the  Synod  of  Genessee,  in  a  letter 
penned  in  1837,  wrote  thus:  "Ministers  and  churches 
in  this  section  have  become  so  much  disposed  to  favour 
Arminian  doctrines,  and  are  so  fond  of  new  things, 
that  it  is  difficult  to  preach  the  doctrine  of  our  Con- 
fession, or  even  to  use  our  endeavours  to  correct 
abuses  and  extravagances  in  measures,  without  hear- 
ing the  cry  of  Old-school,  opposed  to  revivals,"  &c. 
Another  minister  wrote  as  follows:  "New  Theology 
and  new  measures  have  received  a  number  of  checks 
in  our  Presbytery,  and,  indeed,  in  this  region  general- 
ly— especially  since  the  Old-school  in  the  Assembly 
began  to  be  so  earnest  for  reform.  Though  I  do  not 
by  any  means  suppose  but  what  the  roots  of  the  evil 
remain  among  us  yet,  ready  to  spring  up  when  per- 
mitted. Indeed,  in  one  sense,  almost  the  entire 
theology  of  this  whole  region  is  "iVe?^,"  if  strictly 


PREVALENCE   OF   ERRORS.  231 

compared  with  our  standards."  At  a  protracted 
meeting  in  one  of  tlieir  churches  in  May,  1837,  the 
officiating  minister,  after  preaching  a  sermon  on  the 
ability  of  Christians  to  keep  the  law  of  God,  called 
upon  them  to  confess  their  sins,  and  promise  to  keep 
the  law.  Most  of  them  were  willing  to  confess,  but 
when  they  came  to  make  promises,  there  was  a  reluc- 
tance ;  as  but  few  were  prepared  to  fall  in  practically 
with  the  doctrine  of  the  sermon.  Some  said.  We  will 
try — others.  We  will  endeavour  hy  Qod's  assistance, 
&c.;  but  this  did  not  satisfy  him — he  called  it 
Antinomianism — and  told  them  he  wished  them  to 
promise,  not  that  they  would  try  to  keep  the  law, 
but  that  they  would  keep  it.  A  spice  of  perfection- 
ism existed  at  that  time  in  several  of  their  churches, 
and  also  in  some  churches  belonging  to  the  Synods 
before  named — but  it  was  discountenanced,  and  made 
a  ground  of  discipline  by  some  of  the  Presbyteries, 
perhaps  by  all  where  it  was  known  to  exist.  The 
same  cannot  be  stated  concerning  the  Synod  of 
the  Western  Reserve,  a  majority  of  whose  ministers 
and  churches,  we  have  reason  to  believe,  accorded  in 
doctrine  with  Mr.  Finney.  This  is  inferred  concern- 
ing the  ministers,  from  the  fact,  that  in  1834  or  1835, 
a  paper  was  signed  by  fifty  ministers  or  more,  invit- 
ing Mr.  Finney  to  become  Professor  of  Theology  in 
the  Western  Reserve  College;  and  concerning  minis- 
ters and  people  both,  it  may  be  inferred  from  the  fact 
that  the  labours  of  Mr.  Foote,  as  an  evangelist,  (who 
preached  extensively  among  them)  were  generally  ap- 
proved.    Mr.  Foote,  it  was  understood,  agreed  sub- 


232      ATTEMPTS  TO  CHECK  THESE  ERRORS. 

stantiallj  witli  Mr.  Finney,  but  went  further  than  the 
latter  in  some  points,  from  what  is  called  Old- school 
theology. 

ATTEMPTS   TO   CHECK     THESE   ERRORS. 

Attempts  were  made  to  check  these  errors  as  early 
as  1829  or  1830,  and  were  continued  every  year  till 
the  occurrence  of  those  decisive  measures  adopted  by 
the  Assembly  in  1837.  Individual  efforts  were  made 
through  the  press,  by  the  publication  of  books, 
pamphlets,  and  periodicals.  Besides  the  able  Quar- 
terly at  Princeton,  which  had  been  commenced  a  lit- 
tle previous,  and  a  monthly  Magazine  at  Philadel- 
phia, both  of  which  did  good  service  in  defence  of 
the  truth,  four  weekly  newspapers  were  either  estab- 
lished or  resuscitated  for  the  special  purpose  of  coun- 
teracting these  errors,  and  those  "new  measures" 
which  were  generally  associated  with  them — one  in 
Utica,  a  second  in  Albany,  a  third  in  Philadelphia, 
and  a  fourth  in  Pittsburgh.  The  last  two  have  been 
continued  to  this  day.  Prosecutions  for  heresy  were 
instituted  in  two  instances,  against  distinguished  indi- 
viduals "  before  their  Presbyteries,  on  the  charge  of 
holding  and  teaching  some  of  those  errors.  The 
Board  of  Missions  refused  to  commission  men  as  mis- 
sionaries, who  were  suspected  of  entertaining  those 
views.  The  gratuitous  distribution  of  the  Confession 
of  Faith  "among  the  more  remote  and  destitute 
churches,"  was  provided  for  by  vote  of  the  Assem- 
bly. That  body  enjoined  on  Presbyteries  to  take 
special  care  to  require  of  candidates  for  licensure  and 


ATTEMPTS  TO  CHECK  THESE  ERRORS.      233 

ordination,  and  of  ministers  entering  our  Church 
from  other  ecclesiastical  connections,  to  give  their 
assent  to  the  "  Constitution  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church;"  and  a  paper  was  adopted  by  the  Assembly 
to  the  effect,  that  an  assent  to  this  constitution  had 
always  been  considered  as  a  reception  and  adoption 
of  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith,  and  Larger 
and  Shorter  Catechisms  as  the  confession  of  our  faith. 
Particular  attention  was  directed  to  operation  of  the 
Plan  of  Union  of  1801,  between  Presbyterians  and 
Congregationalists;  and  the  Synod  of  the  Western 
Reserve  was  especially  directed  to  examine  the  state 
of  the  churches  under  its  care,  with  reference  to 
alleged  departures  from  the  Constitution  of  the 
Church,  in  ordaining  ministers  and  receiving  them 
from  other  churches  "without  being  required  by  the 
Presbyteries  to  receive  and  adopt  the  Confession  of 
Paith  of  the  Presbyterian  Church."  (See  Minutes 
of  Assembly  for  1832  and  1833.)  Appeals  from 
lower  judicatories  were  also  brought  before  the 
Assembly,  containing  charges  of  doctrinal  error,  and 
efforts  were  made  (though  unsuccessful)  to  secure  the 
suspension  of  the  persons  on  trial,  from  the  office  of 
the  ministry. — Minutes  of  the  Assembly  for  1836. 

The  inefficiency  of  these  measures  was  owing  to 
several  causes.  One  was,  the  earnest  desire  for 
peace,  which  induced  many  sound  men  to  favour  a 
conciliatory  and  compromising  policy,  so  long  as 
there  was  in  their  judgment  any  reasonable  hope 
that  the  evils  complained  of  would  gradually  cure 
themselves,  without  a  resort  to  extreme  measures. 
20* 


234  OPERATION   OF   THE   PLAN   OP   UNION. 

A  second  was  the  effect  of  the  Plan  of  Union 
to  introduce  into  our  body  many  ministers  who 
regarded  themselves  as  having  a  right  under  the  pro- 
visions of  that  Plan,  to  receive  our  Confession  of 
Faith  only  for  substance  of  doctrine :  and  being  men 
of  loose  doctrinal  views  (in  the  strict  Presbyterian 
sense  of  this  term)  they  were  opposed  to  the  exercise 
of  discipline  for  doctrinal  errors.  By  the  operation 
of  the  same  Plan  (though  by  its  perversion)  hundreds 
of  Congregational  and  mixed  churches,  claimed 
the  right  of  being  represented  in  our  Presbyteries, 
Synods,  and  General  Assembly,  by  men  who  were 
not  ruling  elders,  and  had  never  assented  to,  and  did 
not  profess  to  receive  (except  in  the  largest  sense) 
the  Presbyterian  Confession  of  Faith.  A  third  was 
the  influence  of  the  Home  Missionary  and  American 
Education  Societies,  particularly  the  former,  in  intro- 
ducing into  our  pulpits  unsound  men,  who  in  some 
localities  became  so  numerous  as  to  form  majorities  in 
our  church  courts.  These  last  two  points  may 
require  some  illustration. 

OPERATION   OF   THE   PLAN   OF    UNION. 

As  the  Plan  of  Union  permitted  churches  formed 
under  it  to  enjoy  their  preferences  either  to  be  or- 
ganized as  Presbyterian  or  Congregational  churches, 
or  to  be  a  mixture  of  the  two,  as  circumstances 
might  seem  to  render  expedient;  and  as  a  large 
portion  of  the  material  for  the  churches  in  Western 
New  York  and  Northern  Ohio,  called  the  Western 
Reserve,    was    composed   of  immigrants   from  New 


OPERATION    OF.  THE   PLAN   OF    UNION.  235 

England,  where  most  of  the  churches  were  Congre- 
gational, it  was  to  be  expected  that  there  would  exist 
very  extensively  a  partiality  for  the  Congregational 
form  of  government.  Hence  it  is  not  surprizing  that 
in  1837  about  one  half  of  the  churches  in  those 
Synods,  taken  as  a  whole,  were  Congregational,  and 
that  portions  of  many  others  preferred  that  kind  of 
organization — some  of  them  to  such  a  degree  as  to  be 
quite  restive  under  the  government  of  a  church  ses- 
sion. In  the  Synod  of  Utica  the  churches  were 
about  equally  divided  with  respect  to  organization; 
in  the  Synods  of  Geneva  and  Genessee,  about  two- 
thirds  were  nominally  Presbyterian,  and  in  the  Sy- 
nod of  the  Western  Reserve  about  three  fourths  were 
Congregational.  In  all  of  them,  though  there  was 
an  understanding  that  as  churches  they  received  in  a 
very  general  manner  the  Confession  of  Faith  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church,  there  was  no  formal  adoption 
of  it  by  the  churches  even  as  a  "system"  or  for 
"substance  of  doctrine."  The  Assembly's  Shorter 
Catechism  was  understood  to  be  an  epitome  of  the 
Presbyterian  Confession  of  Faith,  and  that  Cate- 
chism was  held  in  high  estimation  in  the  New  Eng- 
land churches,  and  hence  those  who  left  them  and  set- 
tled in  Western  New  York  and  the  Western  Reserve 
felt  no  objection  on  doctrinal  grounds  to  be  connect- 
ed with  the  Presbyterian  body.  Yet  they  did  not 
feel  themselves  committed  even  to  the  Catechism,  as 
their  confession  of  faith.  Each  church  had  its  own 
confession,  and  this  might  be  enlarged  or  abbre- 
viated, changed  or  modified,  at  the  pleasure  of  the 


236  THE   AMERICAN   EDUCATION 

communicants.  Through  the  influence  of  those  evan- 
gelists called  "revival  men,"  who  laboured  exten- 
sively among  them  for  eigKt  or  ten  years,  commencing 
in  1826,  many  of  these  confessions  were  altered, 
some  in  one  way  and  some  in  another,  so  as  to  meet 
(in  the  judgment  of  their  advisers)  the  demands  of 
Christian  charity,  or  to  keep  pace  with  the  increasing 
light  of  the  age.  I  state  these  facts,  not  conjec- 
turally,  but  from  the  most  reliable  testimony.  Many 
of  their  ministers  were  also  from  New  England,  and 
professed  to  receive  the  Confession  of  Faith  only  as  a 
"system;"  while  s-ome  of  them  entered  the  Presby- 
terian Church  without  any  formal  adoption  of  our 
Standards.  This  is  admitted  by  the  Synod  of  the 
Western  Reserve  in  its  communication  to  the  General 
Assembly  in  1833.  (See  Assemhly's  Minutes  for  that 
year.)  From  these  facts  it  is  manifest,  that  in  a 
Presbytery  or  Synod  composed  largely  of  such  men, 
there  would  exist  but  little  disposition  to  call  any  of 
its  members  to  account  for  a  departure  from  our 
Confession  of  Faith; — and  that  should  they  be  ad- 
mitted to  seats  in  the  General  Assembly,  they  might 
be  expected  to  oppose  any  measure  brought  forward 
in  that  body,  having  in  view  the  prosecution  either  of 
ministers  or  churches  for  doctrinal  error. 

THE    AMERICAN   EDUCATION    AND    HOilE    MISSIONARY   SOCIETIES. 

The  injurious  influence  of  the  American  Education 
Society  in  our  Church,  arose  chiefly  from  the  nature 
of  its  organization.  It  aided  Congregationalists, 
Presbyterians,    Lutherans,    &c.,    but    exercised    no 


AND   HOME   MISSIONARY   SOCIETIES.  237 

ecclesiastical  control  over  its  candidates.  This  en- 
larged and  liberal  policy  was  often  held  up  in  certain 
quarters,  by  way  of  contrast  with  the  rigid  and  sec- 
tarian course  pursued  by  the  Board  of  Education, 
which  required  its  beneficiaries  to  subscribe  a  pledge 
containing  their  assent  to  the  Confession  of  Faith, 
and  their  purpose  to  become  preachers  of  the  gospel 
in  the  Presbyterian  Church.  The  tendency  of  this 
comparison,  in  its  influence  upon  the  Presbyterian 
beneficiaries  of  the  American  Education  Society,  was 
to  diminish  their  attachment  to  their  own  church ;  to 
make  them  feel  that  its  doctrinal  standards,  according 
to  their  obvious  and  commonly  received  sense,  were 
too  rigid,  unfriendly  to  revivals,  and  to  the  spirit  of 
the  age;  and  that  these  formularies  must  be  under- 
stood in  a  lax  sense,  in  order  to  enable  those  who 
adopt  them  to  preach  the  gospel  with  sincerity, 
earnestness,  and  success. 

The  Home  Missionary  Society  exerted  an  un- 
friendy  influence  among  us  in  several  ways.  The 
policy  of  that  Society,  and  perhaps  its  Constitution 
also,  were  antagonistic  to  strict  Presbyterianism.  It 
was  at  first  the  rival,  and  then  the  opponent  of  our 
own  Board  of  Missions.  What  the  latter  was  au- 
thorized and  required  to  do,  in  order  to  check  the 
progress  of  error,  by  refusing  to  commission  unsound 
men,  the  former  either  could  not  constitutionally  do, 
or  did  not  attempt.  Many  of  those  sent  out  by  this 
Society  to  labour  in  our  churches,  were  more  or  less 
favourable  to  the  "New  Theology."  Circumstances 
appeared  also  to  indicate  that  in  some  instances  their 


238  ACTS    OF   THE   GENERAL    ASSEMBLY. 

location  was  selected  for  them  with  reference  to  their 
"liberal"  views  concerning  doctrine  and  polity.  It 
was  spoken  of  at  the  time,  as  being  no  uncommon 
event,  for  the  majority  in  small  Presbyteries  to  be- 
come, in  a  few  months,  the  minority,  by  the  accession 
of  three  or  four  missionaries  of  that  Society.  And 
in  most  cases,  as  members  of  our  judicatories,  whether 
in  the  majority  or  minority,  they  were  found,  on  ques- 
tions of  doctrinal  controversy,  to  argue  and  vote 
against  the  Old-school,  and  in  favour  of  the  New. 
From  these  particulars,  it  is  easy  to  see  what  a  power- 
ful influence  that  Society  was  exerting  over  the  several 
judicatories  of  the  Presbyterian  Church;  and  how 
difficult  it  was,  under  these  circumstances,  to  obtain  a 
verdict  against  the  errors  and  irregularities  which 
existed  within  our  bounds.  After  a  struggle  of 
several  years,  the  crisis  at  length  arrived,  and  the 
General  Assembly  of  1837  adopted  those  decisive 
measures,  which  were  condemned  by  one  party  as 
unconstitutional  and  oppressive,  but  regarded  by  the 
other  as  being  authorized  by  the  Constitution  of  the 
Church,  and  demanded  by  the  necessity  of  the  case. 
To  those  acts  we  will  now  direct  our  attention. 


CHAPTER  XI. 

THE   ACTS   OF   THE   GENERAL   ASSEMBLY   IN   1837   AND    1838. 

As  the  Plan  of  Union  agreed  to  in  1801  by  the 
General  Assembly  and  the  General  Association  of 
Connecticut,  was  believed  to  be  a  prolific  source  of 


ACTS   OP   THE   GENERAL   ASSEMBLY.  239 

the  errors  whicli  had  for  some  years  disturbed  the 
peace  of  our  Church,  the  first  act  of  the  Assembly, 
touching  the  subject  of  reform,  was  the  abrogation  of 
that  Plan.  This  was  done  in  the  following  terms: 
**But  as  the  'Plan  of  Union'  adopted  for  the  new 
settlements,  in  1801,  was  originally  an  unconstitu- 
tional act  on  the  part  of  that  Assembly — these 
important  standing  rules  having  never  been  sub- 
mitted to  the  Presbyteries — and  as  they  were  totally 
destitute  of  authority  as  proceeding  from  the  General 
Association  of  Connecticut,  which  is  invested  with  no 
power  to  legislate  in  such  cases,  and  especially  to 
enact  laws  to  regulate  churches  not  within  her  limits ; 
and  as  much  confusion  and  irregularity  have  arisen 
from  this  unnatural  and  unconstitutional  system  of 
union ;  therefore,  it  is  resolved,  that  the  Act  of  the 
Assembly  of  1801,  entitled  a  'Plan  of  Union,'  be, 
and  the  same  is  hereby  abrogated." 

As  this  resolution  was  the  basis  of  others  which 
succeeded,  it  is  important  to  correct  two  or  three  mis- 
takes which  appear  to  be  current  in  certain  quarters 
with  regard  to  the  Plan  of  Union.  One  of  these 
relates  to  its  origin.  It  has  been  often  asserted  that 
the  General  Assembly  proposed  the  plan.  This  is  a 
mistake.  It  has  probably  arisen  from  the  fact,  that 
the  only  authority  which  has  been  relied  upon  for  the 
history  of  the  affair,  is  the  Assembly's  Digest,  which 
unfortunately  contains  only  a  part  of  the  record. 
The  Minutes  of  the  Assembly  for  1800  and  1801, 
show  that  the  plan  was  proposed  by  the  General  As- 
sociation of  Connecticut,  and  not  by  the  General 
Assembly. 


240  ACTS   OP  THE  GENERAL   ASSEMBLY. 

In  the  Minutes  for  1800,  is  the  following:  "The 
Rev.  Dr.  Jonathan  Edwards,  the  Rev.  Asa  Hillyer 
and  Jonathan  Freeman  were  appointed  delegates 
from  this  Assembly  to  the  General  Association  of 
Connecticut,"  &c.  Not  a  word  is  said  about  instruct- 
ing them  to  negotiate  a  plan  of  union.  In  the  Min- 
utes of  1801  we  find  their  report  as  follows:  "The 
delegates  from  the  General  Assembly  to  the  General 
Association  of  Connecticut  report,  that  they  all  at- 
tended according  to  appointment  through  the  whole 
course  of  the  session  of  the  General  Association. 
That  besides  the  business  peculiar  to  the  churches  of 
Connecticut,  the  General  Association  appointed  a 
committee  to  confer  with  a  committee  that  may  he  ap- 
pointed hy  the  Qeneral  Assembly,  on  measures  which 
may  promote  union  among  the  inhabitants  of  the  neto 
settlements  and  the  missionaries  to  those  settlements, 
as  appears  hy  the  enclosed  paper.''  Immediately 
after  the  committee  had  reported,  the  paper  referred 
to  above  was  read,  the  minute  concerning  which  is  as 
follows:  "A  communication  was  read  from  the  Gene- 
ral Association  of  the  State  of  Connecticut,  appoint- 
ing a  committee  to  confer  with  a  committee  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church,  to  consider  the  measures  proper 
to  be  adopted  by  the  General  Association  and  the 
General  Assembly,  for  establishing  a  uniform  system 
of  church  government  between  the  inhabitants  of  the 
new  settlements  who  are  attached  to  the  Presbyterian 
form  of  government,  and  those  who  prefer  the  Con- 
gregational form.  Ordered  that  the  said  communica- 
tion lie  on  the  table.     Succeeding  this,  on  the  same 


ACTS   OP   THE   GENERAL   ASSEMBLY.  241 

page,  is  the  following:  "The  Rev.  Drs.  Edwards, 
McKnight  and  Woodhull,  the  Rev.  Mr.  Blatchford 
and  Hutton,  were  appointed  a  committee  to  consider 
and  digest  a  plan  of  government  for  the  churches  in 
the  new  settlements,  agreeably  to  the  proposal  of  tlie 
General  Association  of  Connecticut,  and  report  the 
same  as  soon  as  convenient." 

Again — it  has  been  often  affirmed,  that  during  the 
whole  period  of  thirty-six  years,  in  which  this  plan  was 
in  operation  [prior  to  1837,]  no  objection  was  made  to 
it ;  and  consequently  it  is  to  be  considered  as  having 
received  during  this  long  period  the  silent  approba- 
tion of  the  whole  church.  But  this  is  a  mistake. 
First,  it  is  not  true,  in  the  sense  intended  by  those 
who  revert  to  it,  that  the  Plan  had  been  in  operation 
for  so  long  a  time — I  mean  in  such  a  sense  as  to  give 
to  the  fact  that  force  which  it  is  supposed  to  have  in 
determining  its  validity.  For  ten  or  twelve  years 
after  it  was  formed,  its  influence  upon  the  church  was 
scarcely  felt;  and  for  as  many  more,  the  evils  grow- 
ing out  of  it  had  not  developed  themselves  as  they 
did  after  that  time.  The  Plan  was  originally  intend- 
ed not  as  a  medium  through  which  Congregationalism 
would  be  perpetuated  in  the  Presbyterian  Church, 
but  to  afford  opportunity  for  Congregationalists,  (if 
after  learning  the  character  of  our  system  they  ap- 
proved of  it)  to  become  Presbyterian.  This  remark 
applies  to  both  parties  in  the  arrangement.  The 
ministers  of  Connecticut  were  favourable  to  the  Pres- 
byterian form  of  government;  one  feature  of  it  was 
already  in  existence  in  their  churches,  and  they  were 
21 


242  ACTS    OF   THE   GENERAL   ASSEMBLY. 

"willing  (not  to  say  desirous)  to  have  their  people,  who 
should  emigrate  to  other  States,  become  Presbyterian. 
This  idea,  we  think,  is  clearly  implied  in  the  account 
which  has  been  published  of  the  interview  of  the 
committee  of  the  Assembly  with  a  committee  of  the 
Association  in  1826.  "As  to  the  union,  they  said, 
(the  Connecticut  committee)  that  it  had  not  been 
gone  into  for  their  accommodation,  but  for  ours;  that 
they  had  agreed  to  it  for  two  reasons :  first,  because 
it  was  a  help  to  many  New  England  people  in  the 
infant  settlements  towards  obtaining  gospel  ordi- 
nances: and  secondly,  because  it  assisted  the  Assem- 
hly  in  spreading  Preshyterianism  tlirough  that  re- 
gion.'^ But  instead  of  spreading  Preshyterianism,  it 
spread,  in  a  large  number  of  cases,  Congregational- 
ism under  the  Presbyterian  name.  Presbyteries 
were  not  only  formed  of  Congregational  materials, 
but  with  an  express  stipulation  placed  at  the  begin- 
ning of  their  Records,  that  they  might  always  remain 
so,  and  yet  continue  in  the  Presbyterian  Church.* 
And  then,  by  such  a  construction  of  the  Plan  of  Union 
as  was  never  intended  by  the  original  framers,  they 
claimed  the  right  of  sending  commissioners,  who  were 
not  ruling  elders,  to  the  General  Assembly.  This  is 
the  point  of  time  at  which  the  Plan  ought  to  be  dated, 
if  it  is  designed  to  have  any  bearing  on  the  constitu- 
tional question ;   because  at  this  time,  and  not  before, 

*  See  a  pamphlet  entitled  "Facts  and  Observations/^  &c. 
published  by  the  author  in  1837.  Some  of  the  matter  contain- 
ed in  it  is  now  transferred  to  these  pages. 


ACTS  OP  THE  GENERAL  ASSEMBLY.       243 

were  its  effects  upon  our  cliurch  order  fully  manifest; 
and  this  would  be  not  thirty-six  years,  but  less  than 
twenty. 

We  are  now  prepared  to  observe,  secondly,  that  as 
soon  as  these  effects  of  the  Plan  of  Union  were  per- 
ceived, objections  began  to  be  made  to  it,  and  they 
were  repeated  at  different  times,  and  in  one  form  or 
another,  until  its  abrogation.  In  1826,  a  commis- 
sioner from  the  Rochester  Presbytery  was  received 
by  the  Assembly,  who  was  not  a  ruling  elder;  but  a 
protest  was  immediately  entered  against  it,  signed  by 
forty-two  members.  In  1831,  a  committee-man  was 
received  by  the  Assembly  as  a  commissioner  from  the 
Grand  River  Presbytery,  against  which  sixty-seven 
members  entered  their  protest.  A  part  of  this  pro- 
test is  as  follows:  "The  articles  of  agreement  alluded 
to  in  the  beginning  of  this  paper,"  (referring  to  the 
Plan  of  Union  of  1801,)  "are  supposed  to  give  this 
individual,  and  all  others  similarly  situated,  a  seat  in 
this  Assembly.  That  agreement  is  altogether  anoma- 
lous to  our  form  of  government,  and,  so  far  as  it  does 

extend,  is  in  derogation  of  it." "  Those 

articles  can  never  cover  this  case,  because  they  ex- 
pressly stipulate  the  church  session  and  Presbytery, 
as  the  church  courts  to  which  these  '  committee-men' 
may  have  access,  in  the  character  of  ruling  elders, 
and  mention  no  others." "If,  how- 
ever, they  are  so  construed  as  to  place  members  here 
who  are,  by  our  constitution,  forbidden  to  be  here,  or 
as  in  any  degree  to  affect  the  principles  of  the  organ- 
ization of  this  house,  as  clearly  defined  in  our  books, 


244  ACTS   OP   THE   GENERAL   ASSEMBLY. 

then  it  is  manifest   that  the   articles  must  be  con- 
sidered utterly  null  and  void.'' 

Though  the  Assembly  received  the  commissioner 
above  referred  to,  they  adopted  a  resolution  that  "  the 
appointment,  by  some  Presbyteries,  as  has  occurred 
in  a  few  cases,  of  members  of  standing  committees 
to  be  members  of  the  General  Assembly,  is  inexpe- 
dient, and  of  questionable  constitutionality,  and  there- 
fore ought  not,  in  future,  to  be  made."  The  next 
year,  that  same  Presbytery  delegated  two  committee- 
men as  commissioners  to  the  Assembly;  but  their 
commissions,  after  having  been  placed  in  the  hands 
of  a  committee,  were  withdrawn.  At  the  same  meet- 
ing, there  was  a  commissioner  from  a  Presbytery  in 
Western  New  York,  who  was  neither  an  elder  nor  a 
committee-man;  but  being  commissioned  as  an  elder, 
and  no  one  present  being  acquainted  with  the  circum- 
stance, or  disposed  to  make  it  known,  he  was  received 
as  a  member.  The  year  following  a  committee-man 
appeared  from  the  Presbytery  of  Oswego,  and  would 
have  been  received,  (as  his  commission  did  not  speci- 
fy his  true  character,)  had  not  a  member  who  had 
incidentally  become  acquainted  with  the  fact,  made  ifc 
known  to  the  house,  when  leave  was  given  him  to 
withdraw  his  commission.  These  facts  show  with 
what  tenacity  those  Presbyteries  which  were  formed 
in  pursuance  of  the  Plan  of  Union,  persisted  in  the 
practice  of  sending  up  commissioners,  even  after  the 
Assembly  had  adopted  a  resolution  against  it;  and 
the  course  which  the  Assembly  pursued  in  regard  to 


ACTS   OP   THE   GENERAL   ASSEMBLY.  245 

tliem,  was  an  expression  of  disapprobation  against 
their  interpretation  of  the  Plan,  if  not  against  the 
Plan  itself.  In  1835,  the  Assembly  resolved  that  no 
more  churches  should  be  organized  on  the  Plan  of 
Union,  and  in  1837  the  plan  was  abrogated.  Thus 
for  eleven  years  previous  to  this  last  act,  there  was 
evidently  a  growing  dissatisfaction  with  the  manner 
in  which  the  Plan  of  Union  was  found  to  operate ; 
its  constitutionality  was  more  than  once  called  in 
question,  and  intimations  were  given,  in  no  doubtful 
language,  that  the  Assembly  ought  either  to  "  amend 
or  annul"  it. 

With  reofard  to  the  measure  itself — it  has  been  ob- 
jected  that  the  Assembly  were  bound,  before  passing 
such  an  act,  to  ask  the  consent  of  the  other  contract- 
ing party — meaning  thereby  either  the  General  Asso- 
ciation of  Connecticut,  or  the  churches  formed  on  the 
Plan  of  Union.  Were  they  bound  to  ask  the  consent  of 
the  Association  ?  For  an  answer  to  this  question,  we 
refer  the  reader  to  the  opinion  of  George  Wood,  Esq., 
given  in  1837,  at  the  request  of  some  of  our  New- 
school  brethren.  "  I  do  not  think  that  this  Plan  of 
Union  formed,  or  was  the  result  of  a  compact  between 
the  General  Assembly  and  the  Association  of  Con- 
necticut, so  as  to  render  it  obligatory  upon  the  Gene- 
ral Assembly  to  carry  into  effect  the  measure,  or  to 
continue  its  operation  any  longer  than  they  should 

deem  proper." ^'It  may  be  questioned 

whether  the  assent  of  the  Association  to  the  adoption 
by  the  Assembly  of  this  Plan  was  necessary.     The 
Congregationalists  to  be   affected  by  this  Plan  were 
21* 


246  ACTS   OF   THE   GENERAL   ASSEMBLY. 

out  of  the  jurisdiction  of  that  Association,  and  beyond 
their  control ;  but  they  no  doubt  felt  themselves 
under  a  moral  influence,  which  rendered  it  a  matter 
of  delicacy  and  expediency  on  the  part  of  the  Gene- 
ral Assembly  to  obtain  the  assent  of  that  Association. 
But  supposing  the  assent  of  the  Association  to  have 
been  indispensable  when  it  was  given,  they  had 
nothing  further  to  do  with  the  Plan.  It  then  became 
the  measure  of  the  G-eneral  Assembly  alone,  to  be 
dropped,  or  acted  upon,  or  modified  as  they  should 
deem  advisable.''  If  this  opinion  be  correct,  then 
the  churches  alone,  if  any  body,  were  the  party  to 
be  consulted.  On  this  point  we  need  only  observe, 
that  if  there  is  obligation  on  either  side  to  ask  the 
consent  of  the  other  before  the  connection  might  be 
dissolved,  this  obligation  must  be  equally  binding 
upon  both.  But  did  the  churches  ever  feel  any  obli- 
gation of  this  kind  ?  Did  they  not  always  consider  it 
as  optional  with  them,  either  to  continue  their  con- 
nection with  the  Presbyterian  Church,  to  become 
independent,  or  join  an  Association,  without  asking 
the  consent  of  the  General  Assembly?  As  a  matter 
of  courtesy,  they  usually  notified  the  Presbytery  to 
which  they  belonged,  that  they  were  about  to  change 
their  ecclesiastical  connection ;  but  not  from  a  belief 
of  the  existence  of  any  contract  with  the  Presbytery, 
which  obliged  them  to  do  so ;  and  it  frequently  hap- 
pened that  the  Presbyteries  had  no  knowledge  of  their 
intention,  until  after  the  formation  of  their  new  alli- 
ances. If,  therefore,  the  churches  formed  on  the 
Plan  of  Union  did  not  understand  the  Plan  as  in- 


FURTHER  PROCEEDINGS  OP  THE  ASSEMBLY.  247 

volving  any  obligation  upon  themselves  of  the  kind 
supposed,  it  would  be  unreasonable  in  them  to  main- 
tain that  any  such  obligation  rested  on  the  Assembly, 
or  to  expect  that  an  overture  should  have  been  made 
to  them  by  the  Assembly,  asking  their  consent  for  a 
dissolution  of  the  union. 

FURTHER   PROCEEDINGS   OF   THE   ASSEMBLY. 

The  bond  which  connected  the  three  Synods  of 
Western  New  York  and  the  Synod  of  the  Western 
Reserve  with  the  General  Assembly  being  now  sun- 
dered, it  was  a  grave  question  for  the  Assembly  to 
consider,  whether  they  should -proceed  to  declare  this 
fact,  and  thence  regard  and  treat  those  Synods  as 
being  separated  from  the  Presbyterian  Church,  and 
of  course  no  longer  amenable  to  the  Assembly ;  or 
whether  the  separation  of  the  Congregational  from 
the  Presbyterian  materials,  should  be  effected  through 
the  action  of  Presbyteries  and  churches.  There  were 
in  those  Presbyteries  ministers  and  churches,  or  at 
least  parts  of  churches,  thoroughly  Presbyterian, 
whose  rights  and  privileges  were  in  some  way  to  be 
provided  for;  but  the  number  of  Congregationalists 
was  so  large  as  to  render  it  very  difficult,  if  not  im- 
practicable, to  carry  out  the  views  of  the  Assembly 
through  the  action  of  Presbyteries  or  churches.  On 
the  other  hand,  there  were  in  some  Synods  not  owing 
their  existence  to  the  Plan  of  Union,  a  few  Congre- 
tional  churches,  whose  future  relations  were  to  be  de- 
termined by  some  method  of  proceeding  to  be  adopted 
by  the  Assembly ;  and  would  it  not  be  best  to  pursue 


248        FURTHER   PROCEEDINGS    OP   THE   ASSEMBLY. 

a  uniform  course  with  regard  to  all  ?  These  were 
questions  which  demanded  serious  deliberation.  Ac- 
cordingly no  further  action  was  taken  on  this  subject 
for  a  day  or  two  ;  and  the  Assembly  resolved  to  intro- 
duce judicial  process  against  "  such  inferior  judicato- 
ries as  should  appear  to  be  charged  by  common  fame 
with  the  toleration  of  gross  errors  in  doctrine  and  dis- 
orders in  practice."  This  resolution  was  carried  by 
a  majority  of  6  only — 122  voting  in  the  negative  and 
102  entering  their  protest  against  it!  What  hope 
was  there  that  citations  issued  under  such  circum- 
stances, would  be  of  any  avail?  This  vote,  and  the 
previous  one  abrogating  the  Plan  of  Union,  (on  which 
110  voted  in  the  negative,)  showed  also  how  ineffectual 
would  be  the  attempt  to  reach  the  evils  complained  of, 
by  directing  the  Presbyteries  or  churches  to  take  action 
based  on  the  abrogation  of  that  Plan.  A  determina- 
tion was  manifested  by  the  commissioners  from  those 
Synods,  and  by  the  New-school  party  in  general,  to 
adhere  to  the  Plan,  and  to  preserve  the  integrity  of 
the  churches  which  had  been  formed  under  it. 

Judicial  proceedings  appearing  to  be  impracticable, 
a  proposition  was  next  made,  on  the  part  of  the  Old- 
school,  for  a  voluntary  separation  of  the  two  parties 
in  the  church,  and  a  committee  of  ten  was  appointed, 
five  on  each  side,  to  confer  together  and  report  to  the 
Assembly  a  plan  for  an  amicable  division.  This  com- 
mittee agreed  upon  "the  propriety  of  a  voluntary 
separation,"  "the  corporate  funds,  the  names  to  be 
held  by  each  denomination,  the  records  of  the  church, 
and  its  boards  and  institutions."     But  they  differed 


FURTHER   PROCEEDINGS   OF   THE   ASSEMBLY.        249 

"  as  to  the  propriety  of  entering  at  once  by  the  Assem- 
bly upon  the  division;"  "as  to  the  power  of  the  As- 
sembly to  take  effectual  initiative  steps,  as  proposed 
by  the  majority" — i.  e.  by  the  Old-school  members; 
the  New  wishing  to  refer  the  question  to  the  Presby- 
teries ;  and  '^  as  to  the  breaking  up  of  the  succession 
of  that  General  Assembly,  so  that  neither  of  the 
new  Assemblies  proposed  be  considered  that  proper 
body  continued ;"  in  regard  to  which  the  Old-school 
portion  of  the  committee  "could  not  consent  to  any 
thing  that  should  even  imply  the  final  dissolution  of 
the  Presbyterian  Church  as  now  organized  in  this 
country  ;"  though  they  "  were  perfectly  disposed  to  do 
all  that  the  utmost  liberality  could  demand,  and  to 
use  in  all  cases  such  expressions  as  should  be  wholly 
unexceptionable."  The  committee  failing  to  agree, 
each  portion  presented  to  the  Assembly  a  separate 
report,  and  the  subject  was  dropped. 

The  Assembly  then  proceeded  to  carry  into  effect 
the  resolution  before  adopted,  abrogating  the  Plan  of 
Union.  They  declared  first,  the  Synod  of  the  Western 
Reserve  to  be  "no  longer  a  part  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church  in  the  United  States  of  America;"  and  after- 
wards adopted  a  similar  resolution  with  regard  to  the 
Synods  of  Utica,  Geneva,  and  Genessee.  Though 
the  Assembly  assigned  as  their  reason  for  this  course, 
and  their  "urgency  for  the  immediate  decision  of  it," 
the  "gross  disorders  which  were  ascertained  to  have 
prevailed  in  those  Synods;"  they  nevertheless  affirmed 
as  to  their  present  action,  that  they  had  "no  inten- 
tion, by  these  resolutions,"  ....  "to  affect  in  any 


250  FURTHER  PROCEEDINGS  OP  THE  ASSEMBLY. 

way  the  ministerial  standing  of  any  members  of  either 
of  said  Synods;  nor  to  disturb  the  pastoral  relations 
of  any  church ;  nor  to  interfere  with  the  duties  or 
relations  of  private  Christians  in  their  respective 
congregations ;  but  only  to  declare  and  determine 
according  to  the  truth  and  necessity  of  the  case,  and 
by  virtue  of  the  full  authority  existing  in  [the  Assem- 
bly] for  that  purpose,  the  relation  of  all  said  Synods 
and  all  their  constituent  parts  to  that  body,  and 
to  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States." 
The  Assembly  also  provided  that  any  ministers  and 
churches  in  those  Synods  that  were  strictly  Presby- 
terian in  doctrine  and  order,  might  be  exempted  from 
the  operation  of  these  resolutions,  by  applying  to  the 
Presbyteries  in  our  connection  most  convenient  to 
them;  and  that  Presbyteries  of  this  character  might 
be  exempted,  by  making  a  statement  of  their  case  to 
the  next  General  Assembly. 

The  Assembly  likewise  dissolved  the  Third  Presby- 
tery of  Philadelphia,  and  "recommended"  that  the 
American  Home  Missionary  Society  and  the  Amer- 
ican Education  Society  "should  cease  to  operate 
within  any  of  our  churches."  These  measures  require 
no  special  vindication  at  present — as  the  authority  of 
the  Assembly  to  adopt  them  was  not  denied  by  our 
New-school  brethren;  though  for  other  reasons  they 
were  opposed  to  their  adoption.  The  motives  which 
influenced  the  Assembly  to  their  action  with  regard 
to  those  Societies,  have  been  alluded  to  already  in 
the  preceding  chapter,  and  also  in  the  Preface  to  the 
first  edition,  published  in  1838. 


FURTHER  PROCEEDINGS  OP  THE  ASSEMBLY.  251 

Witli  regard  to  the  propriety  of  those  acts,  styled 
opprobriously,  in  New-school  prints,  the  "exscinding" 
acts,  the  discussion  of  two  questions  will  embrace  all 
that  is  necessary  to  a  correct  decision  of  the  case. 
The  first  is,  Was  it  a  legitimate  and  constitutional 
mode  of  proceeding,  for  the  Assembly  to  act  upon 
Synods  as  such?  And  the  second,  Had  those  four 
Synods  any  such  connection  with  the  Plan  of  Union, 
as  to  be  virtually  separated  from  the  Assembly  and 
the  Presbyterian  Church,  by  its  abrogation?  As  to 
the  first — According  to  our  form  of  government,  the 
higher  judicatories  possess  the  power  of  review  and 
control  over  the  lower;  and  in  carrying  out  this 
principle,  the  ordinary  mode  of  action  is  for  the  next 
higher  to  take  cognizance  of  that  which  is  immediately 
below  it.  The  Presbytery  acts  on  the  church,  by  di- 
recting the  session ;  and  the  Synod  on  both  the  session 
and  church,  by  an  order  directed  to  the  Presbytery. 
In  like  manner,  the  General  Assembly  usually  acts 
on  the  lower  judicatories  through  the  Synods.  Though 
that  body  is  not  bound  invariably  to  this  course,  it 
will  not  be  denied  by  any  acquainted  with  our  Con- 
stitution, that  this  is  not  only  a  legitimate  one,  but 
that  it  ought  not  to  be  departed  from,  except  for 
special  reasons.  Suppose,  in  the  case  under  consid- 
eration, the  Assembly  had  attempted  to  act  upon  the 
Presbyteries,  or  (as  some  maintained  they  ought  to 
•have  done)  directly  upon  the  churches.  In  the  former 
case  it  might  have  been  said,  they  had  assumed  the 
prerogatives  of  the  Synod,  and  in  the  latter,  that 
they  had  taken  into  their  hands  a  work  which  be- 


252  FURTHER  PROCEEDIN^GS  OE  THE  ASSEMBLY. 

longed  exclusively  to  the  Presbyteries.  Those  wlio 
opposed  the  measures  of  the  Assembly,  would  have 
objected  with  as  much  earnestness,  we  have  reason  to 
believe,  to  the  other  course.  Many  of  them  did 
virtually  object  to  it  soon  after  in  their  Presbyteries, 
by  the  adoption  of  resolutions  "assuring  the  churches 
under  their  care,  that  the  Plan  of  Union,  so  far  as 
they  were  concerned,  was  still  in  force,  and  its  stipu- 
lations would  be  preserved  by  them  inviolate." 

It  was  urged  against  the  application  of  the  vote  to 
Synods,  that  those  bodies,  as  such,  could  not  have 
been  formed  on  the  Plan  of  Union,  but  were  regularly 
constituted  according  to  the  directions  of  the  Book; 
and  therefore  they  could  not  be  affected  by  the 
abrogation  of  the  Plan.  As  to  the  manner  in  which 
Synods  are  brought  into  existence,  we  admit  that  all 
of  them,  except  the  first,  must  necessarily  be  or- 
ganized alike,  viz:  by  the  division  of  other  Synods — 
and  again,  that  they  all  must  necessarily  be  alike,  in 
being  composed  of  at  least  three  Presbyteries.  But 
suppose  one  or  two  of  the  three  Presbyteries  of 
which  a  particular  Synod  is  composed,  though  they 
bear  the  name  of  Presbyteries,  are  in  reality  Congre- 
gational Associations;  would  the  Synod  in  this  case 
be  regularly  constituted?  Or  suppose  the  Presby- 
teries generally  of  which  it  is  composed,  though 
consisting  in  part  of  Presbyterian  churches,  have 
in  them  so  large  a  number  of  Congregationalists, 
as  to  give  to  the  Presbyteries  a  Congregational 
character ;  would  a  Synod  composed  of  such  Presby- 
teries be  a  regular  Synod  according  to  our  Consti- 


FURTHER  PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ASSEMBLY.  253 

tutlon?  Must  it  not,  on  the  contrary,  be  styled, 
speaking  in  strict  propriety,  a  Congregational  Synod, 
however  agreeable  to  the  Constitution  may  have  been 
the  mere  form  of  its  erection?  On  the  same  princi- 
ple, though  churches  alone,  in  the  first  instance, 
could  be  organized  on  the  Plan  of  Union,  yet  as 
churches,  in  connection  with  their  pastors,  compose 
Presbyteries,  and  Presbyteries  compose  Synods;  if 
such  a  number  of  the  churches  are  formed  on  this 
Plan  as  to  control  the  action  and  policy  of  the  Pres- 
byteries and  Synods,  the  latter,  for  aught  we  can 
perceive  to  the  contrary,  must  also  be  regarded  as 
organized  on  the  Plan  of  Union. 

Again: — it  is  objected  that  this  mode  of  applying 
the  act  operated  unjustly;  as  many  of  the  churches 
in  those  Synods  Avere  strictly  Presbyterian.  If  this 
objection  be  valid,  it  would  effectually  have  closed 
the  door  against  any  action  whatever ;  except  by  dis- 
solving the  churches  formed  on  the  Plan  of  Union, 
and  directing  them  to  organize  anew — at  least,  all 
such  churches  as  are  partly  composed  of  Presbyte- 
rian members.  There  would  be  the  same  reason  to 
complain  of  the  injustice  of  an  act,  w^hich  disowns  a 
Presbyterian  member,  as  of  one  that  disowns  a 
church.  It  is  true  that  the  mode  of  remedying  an 
evil  by  acting  upon  communities,  often  if  not  always 
subjects  individuals  among  them  to  temporary  incon- 
venience, who,  if  they  w^ere  not  thus  connected,  could 
not  justly  be  brought  into  such  circumstances.  But, 
if  the  measure  is  necessary  for  the  public  good,  and 
provision  is  made  by  which  (if  they  avail  themselves 
22 


254  FURTHER  PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ASSEMBLY. 

of  it)  tliey  "will  not  in  the  end  be  affected  injuri- 
ously, they  ought  not  to  complain — especially  if  the 
evil  to  be  remedied  could  not  be  reached  in  any 
other  way. 

In  order  to  ascertain  whether  those  acts  were  just, 
it  is  important  to  understand  their  true  nature. 
Were  they  acts  of  exeommunication  as  some  affirm  ? 
or  did  they  leave  the  disowned  Synods  in  this 
respect,  just  as  they  stood  before?  The  effect  of 
excommunication  is  to  suspend  ministers  from  their 
clerical  functions,  and  church  members  from  Chris- 
tian communion.  Was  this  done,  or  designed  to  be 
done  by  the  General  Assembly?  If  their  disclaimer 
at  the  time  of  adopting  those  resolutions  be  not 
deemed  sufficient,  the  uniform  conduct  of  the  Old- 
school  towards  the  New  in  their  official  and  Christian 
intercourse  with  them,  has  been  from  that  time  to 
the  present,  a  standing  rebuke  to  those  who  attempt 
to  excite  popular  indignation  against  the  Assembly, 
on  the  ground  that  those  Synods  have  been  "ex- 
scinded," "cut  off,"  "expelled,"  without  citation  or 
trial.  Those  acts,  it  is  true,  implied  some  censure. 
But  its  severity  was  greatly  softened,  and  with  regard 
to  the  sound  portion  of  them,  entirely  removed  by  the 
form  in  which  it  was  administered.  There  was  no 
citation  or  trial,  because  all  judicial  proceedings  were 
dropped ;  and  the  Assembly  simply  said  to  them, 
"  We  will  not  disturb  your  ecclesiastical  relations  as 
they  exist  among  yourselves ;  but  we  cannot  consent 
to  have  the  Presbyterian  Church  revolutionized  and 
remodelled  through  your  instrumentality ;  especially, 


FURTHER  PROCEEDINas  OF  THE  ASSEMBLY.  255 

as  you  came  into  it  at  first  only  by  courtesy  and  com- 
promise ;  and  we  therefore  regard  it  as  right  and  pro- 
per to  inform  you,  that  from  this  time  forward,  you 
shall  not  be  represented  in  our  body."  Is  not  this  a 
fair  statement  of  what  the  Assembly  did?  If  so,  (and 
we  believe  it  cannot  be  successfully  controverted,)  we 
cannot  perceive  any  substantial  reason  for  the  charge 
of  injustice — especially  as  the  individuals  and  churches 
who  (as  is  alleged)  ought  to  have  been  excepted,  were 
expressly  informed  that  the  door  was  left  open  for 
them  to  reunite  with  the  Assembly,  if  they  should 
think  this  to  be  more  for  their  edification  and  for 
the  glory  of  God,  than  to  remain  connected  with 
those  Synods.  Chief  Justice  Gibson,  in  giving  the 
opinion  of  the  Court  in  bank  in  1839,  observed  as 
follows:  "The  apparent  injustice  of  the  measure 
arises  from  the  contemplation  of  it  as  a  judicial  sen- 
tence, pronounced  against  parties  who  were  neither 
cited  nor  heard,  which  it  evidently  was  not.  Even 
as  a  legislative  act,  it  may  have  been  a  hard  one, 
though  certainly  constitutional,  and  strictly  just." 

If  then  the  Assembly  acted  constitutionally  and 
justly  in  applying  those  resolutions  to  Synods  taken 
as  a  body,  the  only  question  which  remains  to  be  set- 
tled is,  Had  those  four  Synods  such  a  connection  with 
the  Plan  of  Union,  that  their  separation  from  the 
General  Assembly  and  the  Presbyterian  Church  was 
a  legitimate  consequence  of  its  abrogation?  With 
regard  to  the  Synod  of  the  Western  Reserve,  there 
is  no  ground  for  doubt.  A  member  of  that  Synod, 
the  Rev.  J.  Seward,  in  an  article  communicated  to 


256  FURTHER  PROCEEDINGS  OP  THE  ASSEMBLY. 

the  Ohio  Observer^  in  1837,  wrote  as  follows:  "The 
Presbytery  of  Grand  River,  agreeably  to  the  order  of 
the  Synod  of  Pittsburgh,  was  organized  in  the  autumn 
of  1814,  and  as  it  covered  ground  on  which  a  union 
had  been  established  between  Presbyterians  and  Con- 
gregationalists,  according  to  the  regulations  adopted 
by  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church, 
it  was  deemed  necessary  that  this  Presbytery  should 
be  so  organized  as  to  consolidate  and  perpetuate  this 
union,  and  thus  carry  out  the  recommendations  and 
injunctions  of  the  General  Assembly.  To  accomplish 
this  object,  a  number  of  articles,  adapted  to  the  pecu- 
liar situation  of  the  churches  in  this  region,  was 
adopted  by  this  Presbytery,  and  afterwards  by  the 
Presbyteries  of  Portage  and  Huron,  as  they  were 
respectively  organized.  The  design  of  these  articles 
was  to  secure  to  all  connected  with  these  Presbyteries 
the  rights  and  privileges  pledged  in  the  regulations 
adopted  by  the  General  Assembly  and  the  General 
Association  in  1801."  .  .  .  .  "At  a  meeting  of  the 
General  Assembly  in  1825,  a  petition  was  presented 
for  a  division  of  the  Synod  of  Pittsburgh,  and  the 
erection  of  a  new  Synod,  to  be  composed  of  the  three 
Presbyteries  above  named,  and  to  be  known  by  the 
name  of  the  Synod  of  the  Western  Reserve.     This 

request  was  granted." From  this  statement 

it  will  be  perceived  that  the  three  Presbyteries  of 
which  this  Synod  was  composed,  were  formed  expli- 
citly on  the  Plan  of  Union.  Had  it  not  been  for  that 
Plan,  neither  they  nor  the  Synod  could  have  been 
organized. 


FURTHER  PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ASSEMBLY.  257 

The  oldest  of  the  three  Synods  in  AVestern  New 
York  is  Geneva;  which  was  constituted  in  1812,  by 
a  division  of  the  Synod  of  Albany,  and  consisted  at 
that  time  of  three  Presbyteries,  viz:    Geneva,  Cay- 
uga, and    Onondaga.     The    Geneva  Presbytery  was 
formed  from  the  Presbytery  of  Oneida  in  1805;  at 
which   time   the   latter  Presbytery  reported  twenty 
churches,   about  one-half  of  which  appear   to  have 
been   Congregational;  and  as  that  part  of  its  terri- 
tory which  was  set  off  to  form  the  Geneva  Presby- 
tery, was  particularly  intended  for  the  operation  of 
the  Plan  of  Union,  it  is  reasonable  to  infer  that  a 
large   proportion  of  the  churches  belonging  to   the 
new     Presbytery    were    Congregational.      But     my 
information  with  regard  to  it,  is  not  so  definite  as 
concerning   the   other   two  Presbyteries.     In  1808, 
*  the  Synod  of  Albany,  by  permission  of  the  General 
Assembly,  received   the   Middle  Association  of  the 
Western  District,  as  a  constituent  part  of  that  Synod. 
In  1809,  it  reported  to  the  Synod  twenty-one  congre- 
gations; and  in  the  Minutes  of  the  General  Assem- 
bly for  that  year  and  the  year  following,  the  Associa- 
tion is  named  in  the  statistical  account.     In  1810, 
the  Presbytery  of  Geneva  and  the  "Middle  Associa- 
tion" made  a  joint  request  to  Synod  to  be  organized 
into  three  Presbyteries,  which  was  accordingly  done. 
By  this  arrangement,  that  part  of  Geneva  Presbytery 
which  lay  east  of  Cayuga  lake,  was  detached  from  it 
(containing,  however,  but   a  single    church)    and   in 
connection  with  the  churches  belonging  to  the  Asso- 
ciation, two  Presbyteries  were  formed,  viz:   Cayuga 

09* 


258  FURTHER  PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ASSEMBLY. 

and  Onondaga;  tlie  former  having  fifteen  and  the 
latter  thirteen  churches.  Eight  years  afterwards 
(1819)  these  two  Presbyteries  were  doubled  by  acces- 
sions from  the  Onondaga  Association,  which  was 
dissolved  and  its  ministers  and  churches  received 
into  these  Presbyteries  on  the  Plan  of  Union. 

Several  of  the  Presbyteries  which  were  subse- 
quently added  to  the  Synod  had  a  similar  origin. 
One  of  them  (Cortland)  can  be  traced  to  the  Middle 
Association.  Two  others,  viz:  Chenango  and  Dela- 
ware, derived  their  materials  from  the  Union  Associ- 
ation;  which  was  dissolved,  or  rather  "broken  up," 
by  the  action  of  its  ministers ;  who  without  the  consent 
or  knowledge  of  their  churches,  joined  the  Otsego 
Presbytery ;  immediately  after  which,  the  Presbytery 
applied  to  the  General  Assembly,  to  form  them  into 
a  new  Presbytery,  to  be  called  Chenango;  which 
request  being  granted,  the  Presbytery  was  formed  in 
1826,  consisting  of  ministers  only.  A  plan  of  union 
was  adopted  by  the  new  Presbytery  on  the  basis  of 
the  action  of  the  General  Assembly  in  1808,  soon 
after  which  most  of  their  churches  united  with  the 
Presbytery.  The  Delaware  Presbytery  was  formed 
from  a  part  of  Chenango,  and  of  course  had  the  same 
origin. 

From  these  facts,  it  appears  that  the  Synod  of 
Geneva  not  only  grew  out  of  the  Plan  of  Union,  but 
that  when  it  was  organized,  it  had  not  sufficient 
materials  to  form  a  Constitutional  Synod.  Two  of 
its  three  original  Presbyteries,  were  the  twin  daugh- 
ters  of  the   Middle   Association,   whose   name   had 


FURTHER  PROCEEDINGS  OP  THE  ASSEMBLY.  259 

been  dropped,  but  the  organization  of  its  churcbes 
continued  to  be  substantially  the  same  as  before. 
Nor  did  the  growth  of  the  Synod  for  fifteen  years 
afterwards  materially  change  its  character  in  this 
respect.  Two  other  Congregational  associations 
were  dissolved  during  this  period,  and  without  any 
change  in  their  form  of  government  as  churches,  or 
with  very  slight  ones  it  may  be  in  some  cases,  were 
received  into  the  different  Presbyteries  of  this  Synod. 
The  reader  must  recollect  that  we  do  not  mention 
these  things  as  a  crime,  but  only  to  show  what  is  the 
constitutional  relation  of  this  Synod  to  the  Presbyte- 
rian Church. 

The  Synod  of  Genessee  was  constituted  in  1821, 
by  a  division  of  the  Synod  of  Geneva,  and  consisted 
of  four  Presbyteries,  viz:  Niagara,  Ontario,  Genes- 
see,  and  Rochester.  I  name  them  in  the  order  of 
their  organization.  The  first  two  were  formed  in 
1817,  from  the  Presbytery  of  Geneva;  and  the  last 
tw^o  in  1819,  from  the  Presbytery  of  Ontario.  The 
Genessee  Presbytery,  at  the  time  or  soon  after  it  was 
formed,  adopted  a  paper  containing  an  exposition  of 
the  Plan  of  Union,  and  transcribed  it  in  their  Presby- 
terial  Records,  for  the  information  of  the  churches 
under  their  care.  Whether  any  of  the  other  Presby- 
teries adopted  a  similar  course  on  this  subject,  I  am 
not  informed.  But  from  the  testimony  of  personal 
friends  and  acquaintances,  who  then  resided  in  the 
bounds  of  this  Synod,  I  feel  no  hesitation  in  saying, 
that  the  prevailing  impression  in  all  the  Presbyteries 
was,  that  they  grew  up  under  the  Plan  of  Union; 


260    FURTHER  PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ASSEMBLY. 

and  that  previously  to  1837,  the  churches  in  general 
■were  so  much  attached  to  this  Plan,  viewed  as  a  mod- 
ification of  Presbyterian^  government,  that  rather 
than  give  it  up,  they  would  have  seceded  from  the 
Presbyterian  Church,  and  have  become  wholly  Con- 
gregational. 

The  Synod  of  Utica  was  constituted  in  1829,  by  a 
division  of  the  Synod  of  Albany,  and  consisted  of  five 
Presbyteries,   viz:    Oneida,  Watertown,   Otsego,   St. 
Lawrence,  and   Oswego.     Though  this  Synod  is  the 
youngest  of  the  three  in  Western  New  York,  one  of 
its  Presbyteries,  viz:  Oneida,  is  the  oldest  of  all.     It 
■was  formed  from  a  part  of  the  Presbytery  of  Albany 
in  1802,  one  year  after  the  date  of  the  Plan  of  Union. 
It  consisted  at  that  time  of  six  ministers.    No  churches 
are  named;  but  from  an  examination  of  the  statisti- 
cal reports  of  the  Presbytery  of  Albany  up  to  this 
time,  it  will  appear  that  there  Avere  five  or  six  churches 
embraced  in  the  territory  assigned  to  the  new  Pres- 
bytery.   In  1803  it  had  seventeen,  and  in  1805,  twenty 
churches,  about  one-half  of  which  were  Congregational. 
The  next  year  it  reported  but  eight,  the  others  having 
been  detached  to  form  the   Presbytery  of   Geneva. 
From  this  time  there  was  a  gradual  increase  till  1816, 
■when  there  was  an  accession  of  twelve  ministers  and 
nine  churches.    All  the  ministers  except  one  were  from 
Congregational  Associations;  and  all  the  churches,  it 
is  believed,  were  Congregational.     This  large  acces- 
sion was  owing  to  the  dissolution  of  the  Oneida  Asso- 
ciation, Avhich  has  been  represented  as  an  interesting 
and   flourishing    body;    but  as   the    Plan  of   Union 


FURTHER  PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ASSEMBLY.  261 

opened  a  door  for  their  admission  into  tlie  Presbyte- 
rian Church,  and  as  the  ministers  were  desirous  of 
forming  such  a  connection,  the  people  were  persuaded 
to  yield.  The  Association  was  accordingly  dissolved, 
and  most  of  its  ministers  and  churches  joined  the 
Presbytery. 

The  Presbytery  of  Watertown  (called  at  first  St. 
Lawrence)  was  constituted  from  the  Oneida  Presby- 
tery in  1816,  consisting  of  five  ministers  and  two 
churches.  In  1819,  the  number  of  churches  reported 
to  the  General  Assembly  was  eleven,  seven  of  which 
were  Congregational.  Their  history  in  this  respect, 
from  that  time  onward,  I  am  unable  to  give.  But  the 
Congregational  character  of  the  Presbytery  taken  as 
a  body,  may  be  inferred  from  a  fact  related  to  me  in 
1834  or  1835,  by  a  clerical  brother  who  had  resided 
ten  or  twelve  months  in  that  section  of  the  State; 
viz :  that  a  number  of  ministers  in  that  Presbytery 
belonged  to  a  Congregational  Association,  and  were 
acting  members  both  of  the  Presbytery  and  Associa- 
tion at  the  same  time;  that  in  one  case  a  candidate, 
who  was  refused  license  by  the  Presbytery,  applied 
immediately  afterwards  to  a  part  of  the  same  men, 
who,  laying  aside  their  Presbyterial  character,  and 
acting  in  the  capacity  of  Congregational  ministers, 
made  out  and  subscribed  his  licensure.  The  Otsego 
and  Oswego  Presbyteries  were  also  constituted  from 
the  Presbytery  of  Oneida;  the  former  in  1819,  and 
and  the  latter  in  1822.  As  the  materials  for  these 
Presbyteries  were  derived  mainly  from  the  Oneida 
Association,  an  account  of  which  has  just  been  given. 


262  FURTHER  PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  ASSEMBLY. 

their  connection  with  the  Plan  of  Union  is  sufficiently 
manifest,  without  any  particular  statement  concerning 
their  churches.  In  1837,  one-half  of  those  in  Otsego 
Presbytery  were  Congregational,  and  in  the  Oswego 
Presbytery  two-thirds. 

The  St.  Lawrence  Presbytery  (called  at  first  Og- 
densburg)  was  constituted  in  1821,  by  a  division  of 
the  Presbytery  of  Champlain.  The  latter  Presbytery, 
previous  to  this  time,  extended  over  the  whole  terri- 
tory of  Northern  New  York,  and  was  in  a  great  de- 
gree missionary  ground.  Many  of  the  churches  in 
that  region  were  organized  by  an  excellent  and  labo- 
rious Congregational  missionary,*  whom  I  have  heard 
relate  many  thrilling  incidents  concerning  his  labours, 
his  discouragements,  and  his  success.  I  heard  him 
also,  at  the  same  time,  express  his  partiality  for  the 
Congregational  mode  of  government ;  and  listened  to 
one  of  his  sermons,  which  he  read  to  several  persons 
present,  and  which  had  been  delivered  by  him  on  a 
former  occasion,  a  part  of  which  was  designed  to 
show,  by  way  of  contrast,  the  superior  excellence  of 
Congregationalism.  Some  of  the  churches  which  he 
formed  were,  perhaps,  Presbyterian;  but  the  major 
part  were  undoubtedly  Congregational ;  and  as  those 
churches  composed  afterwards  (at  least  in  part)  the 
St.  Lawrence  Presbytery,  it  is  highly  probable  that  it 
had  for  its  basis  the  Plan  of  Union. 

We  have  thus  noticed  each  of  the  Presbyteries  be- 
longing to  this  Synod,  and  the  result  is,  that  all  of 

*  lie  belonged  to  the  Northern  Associated  Presbytery. 


FURTHER   PROCEEDINGS    OF   THE   ASSEMBLY.        2G3 

them  except  one  were  Congregational  in  their  origin, 
and  continued  to  be  more  or  less  so  in  their  elements, 
form  and  spirit,  after  they  were  constituted  as  Pres- 
byteries. And  the  same  we  have  found  to  be  true 
concerning  the  other  two  Synods.  If  this  statement 
needs  corroborating  by  other  proof,  I  can  adduce  the 
testimony  of  one  of  the  oldest  ministers  in  Western 
New  York,  the  Rev.  Mr.  Hotchkin,  author  of  a  History 
of  the  Churches  there,  and  a  member  of  the  Auburn 
Convention  in  1837.  In  a  speech  made  by  him  on 
that  occasion,  he  said  that  "  the  churches  in  the  three 
Synods  of  Western  New  York"  (with  the  exception  of 
two  or  three  which  were  formed  on  the  plan  of  1801) 
came  in  on  the  plan  of  1808,  when  the  Northern  As- 
sociated Presbytery,  and  the  Middle  Association  of 
the  Western  District,  were  received  by  the  Synod  of 
Albany.*  In  1809,  the  delegates  from  the  Middle  As- 
sociation were  received  in  the  General  Assembly,  and 
their  names,  together  with  the  name  of  the  Association, 
appear  on  the  minutes  of  the  Assembly  of  that  year. 
But  the  Association   soon  lost  its  name,  and  in   con- 

*  The  action  of  that  Synod,  so  far  as  it  related  to  the  North- 
ern Associated  Presbytery,  did  not  go  into  eiFect  for  many 
years.  The  older  ministers  belonging  to  this  body  were  opposed 
to  the  change;  and  out  of  regard  to  their  feelings,  the  Presby- 
tery was  not  dissolved  until  they  had  either  died  or  consented 
to  join  some  other  Congregational  Association;  at  which  time, 
(not  earlier  than  1815  or  1816,)  the  one  or  two  ministers  that 
remained,  united  with  the  Presbytery  of  Albany.  Not  long 
afterwards,  eight  or  ten  of  the  churches  joined  the  same  Pres- 
bytery— about  half  of  them  having  previously  changed  their 
organization,  by  appointing  ruling  elders. 


264         FURTHER   PROCEEDINGS    OF   THE   ASSEMBLY. 

nection  with  the  Presbytery  of  Geneva,  which  was 
organized  several  years,  three  Presbyteries  were 
formed  out  of  it,  viz :  Greneva,  Cayuga,  and  Onon- 
daga. The  Onondaga  Association  was  afterwards  dis- 
solved, by  the  advice  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Chapman,  and 
received  by  the  Synod  of  Geneva  on  the  same  plan." 
Speaking  of  these  churches  having  for  several  years 
waived  their  right  (as  he  regarded  it)  to  be  repre- 
sented in  the  General  Assembly,  in  order  to  avoid 
dijfficulty,  he  said  that  he  had  great  influence  in  bring- 
ing about  the  change  ;  and  that  if  he  had  not  exerted 
his  influence  in  the  case,  instead  of  there  being  three 
Synods,  there  would  probably  have  been  now  (1837) 
but  one  Presbytery." 

The  connection  of  those  four  Synods  with  the  Pres- 
byterian Church,  on  the  basis  of  the  Plan  of  Union, 
having  been  (as  we  think)  sufficiently  established,  it  fol- 
lows, that  the  action  of  the  General  Assembly  concern- 
ing them  was  authorized,  if  not  required,  by  the  opera- 
tion of  the  previous  resolution  adopted  by  the  Assembly 
abro2;atino;  that  Plan.  In  this  conclusion  I  am  sustained 
by  the  Court  in  bank  for  the  State  of  Pennsylvania, 
whose  opinion  was  delivered  by  Chief  Justice  Gibson, 
in  1839.  His  language  is  as  follows:  "Surely  this 
[Plan  of  Union]  was  not  intended  to  outlast  the  ina- 
bility of  the  respective  sects  to  provide  separately  for 
themselves,  or  to  perpetuate  the  innovations  on  Pres- 
byterian government  which  it  was  calculated  to  pro- 
duce. It  was  obviously  a  missionary  arrangement 
from  the  first;  and  they  who  built  up  Presbyteries 
and  Synods  on  the  basis  of  it,  had   no  reason  to  ex- 


FURTHER   PROCEEDINGS   OF   THE   ASSEMBLY.         265 

poet  that  their  structures  would  survive  it,  or  that 
Congregationalists  might,  by  force  of  it,  gain  a  foot- 
hold in  the  Presbyterian  Church,  despite  of  Presby- 
terian discipline.  They  embraced  it  with  all  its  de- 
feasible properties  plainly  put  before  them  ;  and  the 
power  which  constituted  it  might  fairly  repeal  it,  and 
dissolve  the  bodies  that  had  grown  out  of  it,  whenever 
the  good  of  the  church  should  seem  to  require  it." 

As  we  have  quoted  a  part  of  the  opinion  of  the 
Court  in  this  case,  it  may  not  be  amiss  to  make  a 
remark  or  two  concerning  its  final   decision.      The 
trial  before  the  Court  of  Nisi  Prius  resulted  in  favour 
of   the   New-school   party;    in    view    of   which    the 
closing  words  of  the  opinion  delivered  by  the  Court 
in  bank  were — "  Rule  for  a  new  trial  made  absolute." 
This  has  been  represented  in  New-school  publications 
as  deciding  nothing  in  favour  of  the  Old-school  except 
to  grant  them   an   opportunity  for  another  hearing; 
whereas  it  was  a  virtual  decision  of  the  whole  case  in 
their  favour.     Every  important  principle  involved  in 
it  was  fully  discussed,  and  the  concluding  sentences, 
preceding  the  grant  for  a  new  trial,  were  as  follows : 
"  Other  corroborative  views  have  been  suggested  ;  but 
it  is  difficult  to  compress  a  decision  of  the  leading 
points  in  this  case  into  the  old  fashioned  limits  of  a 
judicial  opinion.     The  preceding  observations,  how- 
ever, are  deemed  enough  to  show  the  grounds  on  w^hich 
we  hold  that  the  Assembly  which   met  in  the  First 
Presbyterian  Church  (z.  e.  the  New-school  Assembly) 
was  not  the  legitimate  successor  of  the  Assembly  of 
1837,  and  that  the  defendants  (the  Old-school)  are  not 
23 


206        FURTHER   PROCEEDINaS   OF   THE   ASSEMBLY. 

guilty  of  the  usurpation  with  which  they  are  charged." 
Were  these  words  intended  to  decide  nothing  touching 
the  merits  of  the  case  ?  The  New-school,  and  not  the 
Old,  were  the  plaintiffs ;  and  hence  the  former,  and 
not  the  latter,  were  the  party  to  renew  the  prosecu- 
tion, if  a  new  trial  was  ever  to  be  had.  Why  did  they 
not  recommence  the  suit?  For  this  obvious  reason, 
that  there  was  no  hope  of  success.  Every  point  on 
which  the  decision  of  the  case  depended,  was  ruled  in 
favour  of  the  Old-school  Assembly. 

In  1838  the  commissioners  appointed  by  the  Pres- 
byteries belonging  to  the  four  Synods  above  named, 
and  those  from  other  Presbyteries  who  chose  to  act 
with  them,  formed  a  separate  General  Assembly,  and 
appealed  to  the  civil  court  to  sustain  them  in  their 
new  position.     The  result  of  the  suit  we  have  just 
noticed.     There  being  now  two  bodies,  the  Old-school 
Assembly,  in  order  to  perfect  those  measures  of  reform 
which  had  been  commenced  the  preceding  year,  and 
to  make  special  provision  for  the  future,  adopted  a 
paper  containing  three  acts;  which  provided  for  the 
reception  of  all  such  ministers  and  church  merpbers 
as  were  thrown  by  circumstances  with  the  Presbyte- 
ries represented  in  the  new  Assembly,  but  who  might 
desire   to   remain   with   the    Old-school    body;    and 
directed  them  particularly  what  course  to  pursue  in 
order  to  be  recognized  by  the  Assembly.     These  acts 
were  designed  to  operate,  on  the  one  hand,  as  a  check 
to  the  continuance  in   our  communion   of  any  who 
might  entertain  loose  doctrinal  views ;    and  on  the 
other,  as  an  expression  of  cordial  welcome  to  the  ad- 


FURTHER   PROCEEDINGS   OF   THE   ASSEMBLY.        267 

mission  of  all  who  adopted  the  Confession  of  Faith 
according  to  its  obvious  sense.  Some  words  and 
phrases  which  they  contained,  were  unfortunately  am- 
biguous; on  which  account  objections  were  made  to 
them  by  various  persons,  who  understood  them  as  re- 
quiring those  who  adhered  to  the  Old-school  Assembly 
to  express  their  approbation  of  the  acts  of  the  Assem- 
bly in  1837  and  1838.  Objections  were  also  made  to 
them  on  other  grounds.  An  explanatory  resolution 
was  accordingly  adopted  in  1843,  declaring  that  "  in 
requiring  an  adherence  to  our  church  on  the  basis  of 
the  Assembly  of  1837  and  1838,  they  (the  Assembly) 
did  not  create  nor  introduce  any  new  basis  of  Presby- 
terianism,  but  required  an  adherence  to  the  true  and 
only  basis  of  our  organization  and  communion,  viz : 
the  doctrinal  standards  and  constitution  of  our  church, 
as  founded  on  the  word  of  God,  a  deplorable  depar- 
ture from  which  had  been  suffered  through  the  opera- 
tion of  the  Plan  of  Union."  And  further,  "that  it 
was  not  then,  and  is  not  now,  required  of  those  who 
would  adhere  to  us  as  a  branch  of  the  church  of 
Christ,  that,  as  a  term  of  membership  in  this  church, 
they  should  approve  the  acts  of  the  Assembly  of  1837 
and  1838  ;  but  simply  that  they  should  recognize  tho 
church  as  then  and  subsequently  constituted  as  the 
Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America, 
and  acknowledge  their  subjection  to  its  judicatories." 
This  explanation  was  intended  partly  to  disabuse  the 
minds  of  those  who  desired  to  unite  with  us,  but  could 
not  assent  to  the  required  conditions,  according  to 
their  understanding  of  the  acts  of  the  Assembly  of 


268        FURTHER   PROCEEDINGS    OF   THE   ASSEMBLY. 

1838,  and  partly  to  vindicate  the  Assembly  from  the 
charge  which  had  been  opprobriously  made  against 
them,  of  establishing  a  "new  basis"  wholly  unknown 
to  the  constitution.  Our  New-school  brethren  main- 
tained that  there  could  not  be  a  constitutional  General 
Assembly  without  admitting  the  commissioners  from 
the  four  Synods  of  Western  New  York  and  the  West- 
ern Reserve.  The  acts  of  the  Assembly  of  1838, 
assuming  that  what  had  been  done  the  preceding  year 
on  this  subject  was  "constitutional  and  just,"  required 
of  those  who  would  unite  with  us,  an  adherence  to  the 
Assembly  as  then  constituted,  and  a  recognition  of  it 
as  the  true  General  Assembly.  They  could  not  have 
required  less  than  this  without  receding  from  the 
ground  which  they  had  taken,  re-enacting  the  Plan  of 
Union,  and  restoring  those  Synods  to  their  former 
connection  with  the  Presbyterian  Church. 

The  question,  which  of  the  two  Assemblies  of  1838 
was  the  true  General  Assembly,  the  legitimate  and 
legal  successor  of  the  Assembly  of  1837  may  be 
easily  determined.  Our  New-school  brethren  admit 
that  the  acts  of  the  Assembly  of  1837  excluding  the 
four  Synods,  did  not  destroy  that  body  or  render 
their  subsequent  acts  during  the  same  sessions  inva- 
lid. They  found  their  claim  to  the  succession  on  the 
manner  of  constituting  the  Assembly  of  1838.  The 
standing  committee  of  commissions,  agreeably  to  the 
instructions  of  the  preceding  Assembly,  refused  at 
the  opening  of  the  sessions  of  1838,  to  enrol  the 
names  of  the  commissioners  from  the  Presbyteries 
belonging  to  these  four  Synods,  and  the  moderator 


TRUE  SUCCESSION  OP  THE  ASSEMBLY  OP   1837.       269 

declared  it  out  of  order  to  put  to  the  house  a  motion 
which  was  offered,  touching  this  subject,  until  the 
Assembly  should  be  organized  by  the  election  of  a 
new  moderator;  whereupon  the  New-school  commis- 
sioners, by  the  advice,  as  they  said,  of  ^'  counsel  learn- 
ed in  the  law,"  proceeded  immediately  to  appoint  a 
new  moderator  and  clerks,  and  then  adjourned  to 
meet  in  another  house,  leaving  the  Old-school  portion 
in  the  quiet  occupancy  of  their  seats.  By  this  ma- 
noeuvre they  claim  to  have  deposed  the  moderator 
and  to  have  elected  another  in  his  place ;  and  then 
after  having  in  like  manner  elected  new  clerks,  to 
have  carried  with  them  as  they  left  the  house  the 
true  and  legal  succession.  The  silence  of  the  Old- 
school  commissioners  while  these  hasty  and  disorderly 
proceedings  were  going  on,  is  construed  by  them  as 
having  been  a  legal  acquiescence  in  this  extraor- 
dinary movement.  A  few  considerations  will  place 
this  matter  in  its  true  light. 

1.  If  the  acts  of  the  Assembly  of  1837  disowning 
the  four  Synods  were  "constitutional  and  strictly 
just,"  as  was  affirn?ed  by  the  Court  in  bank  for  the 
State  of  Pennsylvania,  then  the  exclusion  of  the  com- 
missioners from  those  Synods  in  1838,  was  constitu- 
tional and  just,  because  this  was  nothing  more  than 
adhering  to  what  had  been  done  the  preceding  year. 

2.  The  refusal  of  the  clerks  t'o  enrol  the  names  of 
those  commissioners,  whether  right  or  wrong,  did  not 
prevent  the  Assembly  of  1838  from  being  validly 
constituted,  our  New-school  brethren  themselves  being 
judges.     The    tender   of    those    commissions    to    the 

23* 


270       TRUE  SUCCESSION  OF  THE  ASSEMBLY  OF  1837. 

house  through  the  moderator,  by  one  of  their  num- 
ber, and  his  motion  to  have  their  names  enrolled, 
assumed  that  there  was  a  regular  moderator  in  the 
chair,  and  a  judicatory  thus  far  validly  constituted; 
for  otherwise  they  were  not  competent  to  receive  and 
act  upon  his  motion. 

3.  If,  then,  the  legal  existence  of  the  body  was  de- 
stroyed at   all,  this  was  done  by  the  suicidal  act  of 
the  moderator  who  refused  to  put  the  motion,  on  the 
ground  that  it  was  out  of  order.     On  this  point  let  it 
be  remembered,  that  though  at  the  time  these  com- 
missions were  offered,  he  had  just  called  for  addition- 
al commissions,  if  there  were  any  in  the  house  which 
had  not  been  presented  to  the  clerks;   this  call  ap- 
plied exclusively  to  those  concerning  whose  right  to 
seats  there  was   no    doubt,   and  not  to   commissions 
refused   by  the    clerks.     Contested  rights  could  not 
properly  be  debated  and  settled  at  that  time,  as  the 
next  business  in  order  was  to  elect  a  new  moderator; 
after   which,    commissions   of  this   description  might 
either  be  considered  by  the  Assembly,  or  referred  to 
a    special    committee    on    elections    to    examine    and 
report  thereon.     The  moderator  was  therefore  not  at 
fault  in  this  particular.     But  on  the  supposition  that 
it  was  his  duty  to  put  the  motion  (which  we  do  not 
admit)  his  refusal  to  do  so  did  not  depose  him  from 
office.     This  could  h6  done,  (even  though  it  should  be 
conceded  that  he   deserved  deposition)  in   no  other 
•way  than  by  a  distinct  motion  to  this   effect,  and  a 
vote  of  the  house  upon  such  motion ;  which  it  is  not 
pretended  was  done  or  attempted. 


TRUE  SUCCESSION  OP  THE  ASSEMBLY  OF  1837.       271 

4.  It  follows  therefore,  that  the  proceedings  of  the 
New-school  commissioners,  which  were  based  on  the 
assumption  that  the  moderator's  chair  was  virtually 
vacated  by  his  own  act,  had  no  foundation  in  truth ; 
and  hence  those  proceedings  did  not  possess  either 
ecclesiastical  or  legal  validity  to  effect  the  end  which 
their  members  who  participated  in  them  had  in  view. 
The  body  which  they  thought  proper  to  leave,  con- 
tained at  the  time,  and  after  the  New-school  members 
left  the  house,  all  the  regularly  constituted  officers  of 
the  Assembly,  and  a  majority  of  all  the  commission- 
ers in  attendance.  The  New-school  members  organ- 
ized a  General  Assembly ;  but  it  was  another  and  a  dif- 
ferent body  from  the  General  Assembly  of  1837 — 38;- 
the  constitutional  links  of  connection  between  the 
two  not  being  possessed  by  them;  while  in  the  or- 
ganization of  the  Old-school  Assembly  were  found  all 
the  requisite  elements  of  a  true  and  legal  succession. 

The  following  extract  from  the  opinion  of  the 
Court  in  bank  already  referred  to,  fully  sustains  us 
in  these  views.  "It  appears,  therefore,  {i,  e.  it  fol- 
lows from  the  preceding  argument)  that  the  commis- 
sioners from  the  exscinded  Synods,  were  not  entitled 
to  seats  in  the  Assembly,  and  that  their  names  were 
properly  excluded  from  the  roll.  The  inquiry  might 
be  rested  here ;  for  if  there  was  no  colour  of  right  in 
them,  there  was  no  colour  of  right  in  the  adversary 
proceedings  which  w^ere  founded  on  their  exclusion. 
But  even  if  their  title  were  clear,  the  refusal  of  an 
appeal  from  the  decision  of  the  moderator,  would  be 
no  ground  for  the  degradation  of  the  officer  at  the  call 


272      TRUE  SUCCESSION  OF  THE  ASSEMBLY  OF  1837. 

of  a  minority ;  nor  could  it  impose  on  the  majority  an 
obligation  to  vote  on  a  question  put  unofficially,  and 
out  of  the  usual  course.  To  all  questions  put  by  the 
established  organ,  it  is  the  duty  of  every  member  to 
respond,  or  be  counted  with  the  greater  number,  be- 
cause he  is  supposed  to  have  assented  beforehand  to 
the  result  of  the  process  pre-established  to  ascertain 
the  general  will ;  but  the  rule  of  implied  assent  is  cer- 
tainly inapplicable  to  a  measure  which,  when  justij&able 
even  by  extreme  necessity,  is  essentially  revolutionary, 
and  based  on  no  pre-established  process  of  ascertain- 
ment whatever. 

''  To  apply  it  to  an  extreme  case  of  inorganic  action, 
as  was  done  here,  might  work  the  degradation  of  any 
presiding  officer  in  our  legislative  halls,  by  the  motion 
and  actual  vote  of  a  single  member,  sustained  by  the 
constructive  votes  of  all  the  rest ;  and  though  such  an 
enterprise  may  never  be  attempted,  it  shows  the 
danger  of  resorting  to  a  conventional  rule,  when 
the  body  is  to  be  resolved  into  its  original  elements, 
and  the  rules  and  conventions  to  be  superseded,  by 
the  very  motion.  For  this  reason,  the  choice  of  a 
moderator  to  supplant  the  officer  in  the  chair,  even  if 
he  were  removable  at  the  pleasure  of  the  commission- 
ers, would  seem  to  have  been  unconstitutional. 

"But  he  was  not  removable  by  them,  because  he 
had  not  derived  his  office  from  them;  nor  was  he 
answerable  to  them  for  the  use  of  his  power.  He 
"was  not  their  moderator.  He  was  the  mechanical 
instrument  of  their  organization;  and  till  that  was 
accomplished,  they  were  subject  to  his  rule — not  he 


TRUE  SUCCESSION  OF  THE  ASSEMBLY  OF  1837.      273 

to  theirs.     They  were  chosen  by  the  authority  of  his 
mandate,  and  with   the   power   of  self-organization, 
only  in  the  event  of  his  absence  at  the  opening  of  the 
session.     Corporally  present,  but  refusing  to  perform 
his   functions,    he   might   be    deemed   constructively 
absent,  for  constitutional  purposes,  insomuch  that  the 
commissioners  might  proceed  to  the  choice  of  a  sub- 
stitute  without  him;  but  not  if  he  had   entered  on 
the  performance  of  his  task ;  and  the  reason  is  that 
the  decision  of  such   questions  as  were  prematurely 
pressed  here,  is  proper  for  the  decision  of  the  body 
when  prepared  for  organic  action,  which  it  cannot  be 
before  it  is  fully  constituted,  and  under  the  presidency 
of  its  own  moderator ;  the  moderator  of  the  preceding 
session  being  functus  officio.  .....  It  seems,  then, 

that  an  appeal  from  the  decision  of  the  moderator  did 
not  lie;  and  that  he  incurred  no  penalty  by  the 
disallowance  of  it.  The  title  of  the  exscinded  com- 
missioners could  be  determined  only  by  the  action  of 
the  house,  which  could  not  be  had  before  its  organiza- 
tion was  complete;  and,  in  the  mean  time,  he  was 
bound,  as  the  executive  instrument  of  the  preceding 
Assembly,  to  put  its  ordinance  into  execution ;  for  to 
the  actual  Assembly,  and  not  to  the  moderator  of  the 
preceding  one,  it  belonged  to  repeal  it." 


274  PRESENT  CHARACTER  AND  CONDITION  OF 


CHAPTER  XII. 

PRESENT  CHARACTER  AND  CONDITION  OF  THE  OLD  AND  NEW-SCHOOL 

BODIES. 

As  nearly  fifteen  years  have  transpired  since  the 
division  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  into  two  bodies, 
there  has  been  sufiicient  opportunity  for  judging 
"whether  those  causes  which  contributed  to  produce 
the  separation  were  real  or  imaginary;  temporary  or 
permanent.  It  has  never  been  denied  that  a  subor- 
dinate cause  of  the  division  was  the  difference  in  the 
views  of  the  two  parties  concerning  voluntary  socie- 
ties and  ecclesiastical  boards;  though  this  of  itself 
could  not  have  resulted  in  the  formation  of  two  dis- 
tinct churches.  No  better  evidence  of  this  could  be 
required  than  the  fact,  that  since  that  time  our  New- 
school  brethren  have  so  nearly  approximated  to  the 
views  of  the  Old-school  church  on  this  subject,  that 
if  this  were  all,  or  even  the  chief  cause  of  our  separa- 
tion, the  union  of  the  two  divisions  could  at  present 
be  very  easily  effected.  But,  though  in  this  respect 
we  now  occupy  nearly  the  same  ground,  no  approach 
has  been  made  to  a  coalescence  of  the  separated  parts. 
On  what  principle  can  this  be  accounted  for,  except 
that  the  main  cause,  which  produced  the  division  still 
exists,  viz:  the  more  serious  and  less  reconcilable 
difference  on  doctrinal  subjects? 

We  admit  that  one  question  not  pertaining  to  doc- 
trine interposes  a  bar  to  reunion.     There  are  many 


THE   OLD   AND    NEW-SCHOOL   BODIES.  275 

Congregational  churches  in   the  New-school  connec- 
tion, with  reference  to  which  the  Presbyteries  to  which 
they  belong  have  taken  action,  guaranteeing  to  them 
the  permanency  of  their  present  relations;  and  the 
New-school  General  Assembly  at  their  last  meeting 
reaffirmed   the    existence    of    the    Plan    of    Union; 
thereby  virtually  perpetuating  Congregationalism  in 
their  bounds.     It  is  well  known  however  that  many 
Congregational  churches  connected  with  their  body 
have  been   for  years  more   or  less  uneasy  in  their 
anomalous  position;  and  the  course  pursued  on  this 
subject  by  the  Convention  at  Albany  last  autumn,  is 
adapted  to  increase  their  uneasiness  and  to  lead  them 
one  after  another  to  Independency.     It  was  probably 
with  a  view  to  allay  their  dissatisfaction  and  to  pre- 
vent any  movement  towards  a  separate  organization, 
that  the  New-school  Assembly  adopted  the  resolution 
just  referred  to.     But  would  they  have  done  this,  if 
they    had  believed  that  the  chief  bar  to  a  reunion 
with  the  Old-school  Church  was  the  existence  of  Con- 
gregationalism in  their  own  body?     Many  of  them 
had  in  different  forms  intimated  their  desire  for  a  con- 
nection with  us,  provided  they  could  come  in  as  a 
body;  and  they  were  acquainted  with  the  fact  that 
the  Congregational  churches  under  the  care  of  their 
Presbyteries,  so  far  from  feeling  themselves  bound  to 
continue  their  connection  with  those  Presbyteries  by 
virtue   of  the  Plan  of  Union,   were  now  and  then 
becoming  Independent;  and  that  for  ten  years   past 
Congregational   editors  have  been  urging  upon  the 
people  holding  their  views  of  church  government,  to 


276  PRESENT   CHARACTER   AND   CONDITION   OP 

carry  out  their  denominational  preferences  by  organ- 
izing  themselves   into    Congregational  Associations. 
Under  these  circumstanced,  that  Assembly  could  have 
easily  opened  the  way  (if  they  had  been  so  disposed) 
for  the  voluntary  separation  of  the   Congregational 
churches  from  their  body;  without   any  violation  of 
an  existing  compact  even  with  their  own  understand- 
ing of  its  binding  force.    But  the  truth  was,  they  were 
conscious  that  if  this  barrier  should  be  removed,  there 
existed  another  which  would  render  it  very  difficult,  if 
not  impossible,  for  the  Old  and  New-school  divisions 
to  form  collectively  a,  reunion,  without  a  change  in  the 
views  of  one  of  the  parties.     First,  the  same  difference 
exists  as  formerly,  with  regard  to  what  is  implied  in 
adopting  our  Confession  of  Faith.     In  a  recent  work 
authorized  by  the  Synods  of  New  York  and  New  Jer- 
sey, a  notice  of  which  is  found  in  our  Introduction,  the 
writer  acknowledges  that  the  New-school  party,  which 
he  represents,  admits  "of  diversity  of  views  on  points 
not  affecting  the  integrity  of  the  system,"  and  that 
"  perfect  uniformity  in  reference  to  a  system  so  com- 
prehensive  and    minute  in  its  details,   is  not   to  be 
expected,   and  ought  not  to  be  required."     In   this 
acknowledgment  we  have  the  starting  point  of  the 
differences  between  the  two  schools.     The  Old-school 
do  require  an  honest,  full  and  hearty  subscription  to 
the  creed  of  the  church ;  the  New  leaves  every  one  to 
judge  what  is  essential  to  the  system;  and  under  this 
convenient  subterfuge,  the  protean  forms  of  new  the- 
ology have  crept  into  the  church.     Again,  the  same 
difference  exists  as  in  former  years,  on  several  im- 


THE   OLD   AND    NEW-SCHOOL   BODIES.  277 

portant  points  of  Scripture  doctrine.  Tlie  extravagant 
manner  of  speaking  which  was  then  common  in  some 
sections  of  our  country  is  now  unknown ;  and  there 
are  indications  of  a  sounder  faith  in  a  number  of  minis- 
ters who  were  once  of  questionable  orthodoxy.  But 
several  of  those  men  whose  published  errors  were  the 
main  ground  of  our  former  troubles,  are  now  in  the 
New-school  body,  take  a  prominent  and  leading  part, 
and  maintain  and  teach  the  same  doctrines  as  in  years 
past.  The  Rev.  Albert  Barnes,  as  Moderator  of  the 
New-school  General  Assembly  of  1851,  delivered  a 
discourse  before  that  body,  in  which  he  not  only  re- 
affirmed his  former  errors,  but  caricatured  those  doc- 
trines which  from  time  immemorial  have  been  esteemed 
orthodox,  and  which  are  known  to  be  held  by  the  Old- 
school.  When  a  motion  was  made  to  print  it,  one  or 
two  members  (perhaps  more — I  write  from  recollec- 
tion) expressed  their  dissent  from  some  points  con- 
tained in  it,  and  objected  to  its  being  published  under 
the  sanction  of  the  Assembly.  The  motion  was  with- 
drawn, but  with  the  understanding  that  the  discourse 
should  be  printed,  which  was  accordingly  done.  How 
many  of  that  Assembly  dissented  from  its  teachings  I 
have  no  means  of  knowing ;  but  not  an  individual 
protested  against  them,  or  even  expressed  disapproba- 
tion except  in  the  manner  above  mentioned.  We  are 
not  aware  that  the  accredited  organs  of  that  body  con- 
tained any  strictures  on  the  sermon  after  it  came  from 
the  press ;  and  in  one  section  of  the  country  (we  can- 
not speak  for  all)  we  happen  to  know  that  pains  were 
taken  by  persons  belonging  to  that  church  to  circulate 
'  24 


278  EFFECTS  OF  THE  DIVISION. 

it  among  the  people.  The  periodicals  alluded  to,  as 
for  example  the  Biblical  Repository,  the  New  York 
Evangelist,  and  the  Philadelphia  Christian  Observer, 
furnish  also  positive  evidence,  from  the  character  of 
some  of  their  articles,  that  those  errors  are  held  by 
some,  we  fear  a  considerable  number,  in  that  connec- 
tion. 

EFFECTS   OF    THE   DIVISION. 

The  necessity  for  a  division  of  the  church  was 
deprecated  by  all;  and  by  none  more  sincerely  than 
the  Old-school.  It  was  anticipated  that  temporary 
evils  and  inconveniences  would  result  from  it,  which 
no  legislation  could  wholly  prevent.  But  it  was 
deemed  preferable  to  submit  to  these  evils,  for  the 
sake  of  avoiding  still  greater  ones  which  appeared  to 
be  inevitable,  if  the  two  parties  in  the  church  should 
continue  any  longer  in  the  same  body.  To  use  the 
language  of  an  excellent  and  distinguished  brother  in 
the  ministry,  "We  were  reduced  to  this  simple  question, 
Is  the  Presbyterian  Church  worth  an  effort  to  save?" 
The  effort  was  made,  and  in  the  good  providence  of 
God  it  has  been  crowned  with  success.  Our  condition 
as  a  Church,  we  are  persuaded,  is  far  better  than  it 
would  have  been  if  the  division  had  not  occurred,  unless 
(an  event  not  to  have  been  expected)  our  New-school 
brethren  had  materially  modified  their  former  views. 

One  beneficial  effect  of  the  separation  has  been  the 
enjoyment  of  greater  harmony  and  peace.  However 
humiliating  the  acknowledgment,  it  is  nevertheless 
true,   that  for  seven  years  or  more  previous  to  the 


EFFECTS   OF   THE   DIVISION.  279 

division,  so  heterogeneous  were  tlie  materials  •which 
composed  the  highest  judicatory  of  our  church,  that 
the  floor  of  the  General  Assembly  had  become  an 
arena  of  strife  and  controversy.  Irrespective  of  the 
question  which  of  the  two  parties  were  in  the  wrong, 
the  simple  facts  that  they  were  at  variance,  and  that 
their  differences  could  not  be  reconciled,  were  suffi- 
cient reasons,  as  in  the  case  of  Abraham  and  Lot, 
(Gen.  xiii.  8,  9)  not  only  for  justifying  but  demanding 
separation.  The  removal  of  these  discordant  ele- 
ments, and  the  organization  of  another  body  by  that 
portion  of  the  church  which  differed  from  us,  restored 
to  our  Assembly  that  harmony  of  action  which  char- 
acterized its  early  history. 

Another  effect  of  the  division  has  been  the  restora- 
tion to  our  body  of  its  former  unity  in  doctrinal  views. 
A  half  century  ago  it  was  sufficient  to  know  that  a  man 
was  a  Presbyterian  minister,  in  order  to  feel  assured 
that  he  was  sound  in  the  faith,  according  to  the  Calvin- 
istic  sense  of  this  phrase.  But  for  ten  years  previous 
to  1837,  this  test  was  quite  insufficient.  Under  the 
Presbyterian  name,  and  with  Presbyterian  credentials, 
ministers  passed  from  congregation  to  congregation 
in  certain  parts  of  our  country,  and  promulgated 
Arminian  and  even  Pelagian  tenets.  At  the  former 
period,  in  changing  one's  ministerial  connection  from 
one  Presbytery  to  another,  a  certificate  of  good  and 
regular  standing  was  deemed  sufficient,  without  a 
personal  examination.  But  during  the  latter,  the 
presenting  of  "clean  papers"  was  found  to  be  no 
certain  evidence  of  soundness  in  the  faith.     Distrust 


280  EFFECTS   OF   THE   DIVISION. 

and  suspicion  took  the  place  of  confidence.  Some 
Presbyteries  began  to  examine  applicants  for  admis- 
sion to  their  bodies  from  other  Presbyteries,  however 
satisfactory  might  be  their  written  credentials.  This 
practice  being  objected  to,  the  question  was  brought 
before  the  General  Assembly.  In  1834,  the  right  to 
re-examine  was  denied.  But  in  1835,  (the  Old-school 
being  in  the  majority,)  the  Assembly  decided  that 
*'it  is  the  right  of  every  Presbytery  to  be  entirely 
satisfied  of  the  soundness  in  the  faith  of  those  minis- 
ters who  apply  to  be  admitted  into  the  Presbytery  as 
members."  This  was  a  partial  remedy  of  the  evil; 
but  our  former  unity  of  sentiment  was  not  restored, 
until  the  separate  organization  of  the  New-school 
body. 

The  "History  of  the  Division"  already  referred  to, 
after  quoting  the  Adopting  Act  of  1729,  observes: 
*'  This  instrument  does  immortal  honour  to  its  authors, 
and  those  who  receive  it  as  a  bond  of  Christian  union 
and  fellowship.  It  provides  for  the  preservation, 
*pure  and  entire,'  of  the  system  of  doctrine"  (the 
italics  are  not  in  the  Adopting  Act)  "  embraced  in  the 
Confession  of  Faith  and  Catechism.  To  errors  which 
are  subversive  of  this  system,  it  gives  not  the  least 
approval  or  even  toleration,  and  at  the  same  time 
admits  what  is  undoubtedly  true  of  every  human 
symbol  of  doctrinal  belief,  equally  extensive  and 
minute  in  its  details,  that  it  embraces  some  things  in 
regard  to  which  those  who  sincerely  adopt  it,  may 
lawfully  differ.  It  likewise  bound  those  who  adopted 
it,  to  treat  each  other,  their  minor  differences  not- 


EFFECTS   OF    THE   DIVISION.  281 

"withstanding,  with  Christian  courtesy  and  brotherly 
affection.  It  is  difficult  to  conceive  how  it  could  have 
been  better  adapted  to  keep  '  the  unity  of  the  Spirit 
in  the  bond  of  peace.'  Had  the  Presbyterian  Church 
in  this  country  been  governed  by  the  pacific  and 
magnanimous  principles  of  this  act,  she  would,  at  this 
time,  have  been  a  united  body."  To  this  last  remark 
we  give  our  assent.  It  was  to  preserve  the  unity  which 
is  here  so  much  lauded,  that  the  Old-school  made  such 
strenuous  efforts  before  the  division  of  the  church. 
They  have  not,  to  my  knowledge,  either  before  or 
since,  taken  any  higher  ground  than  that  required  by 
the  Adopting  Act  of  1729.  A  reference  to  Chapter 
X.  of  this  treatise  will  show  that  our  New-school 
brethren  contended  for  much  greater  latitude  than 
was  authorized  by  that  act.  The  errors  which  they 
refused  to  condemn,  were  believed  by  their  Old- 
school  brethren  to  be  "subversive"  of  the  "system 
of  doctrine  embraced  in  the  Confession  of  Faith  and 
Catechismg^;"  and  hence,  according  to  the  author's 
own  showing,  that  act  did  "  not  give  them  the  least 
approval  or  even  toleration."  If  the  New-school 
had  co-operated  with  the  Old  in  adopting  efficient 
measures  to  counteract  those  errors  when  they  first 
made  their  appearance,  they  might  have  been  rectified 
without  a  division,  and  the  church  "have  been  at 
this  time  a  united  body."  The  truly  catholic  spirit 
of  the  Adopting  Act  is  felt  and  manifested  as  heartily 
and  consistently  by  the  Old-school  body  as  the  New. 
The  cases  alluded  to  in  the  "History"  for  a  different 
purpose,  show  that  there  is  among  us  no  disposition 
24* 


282  EFFECTS   OP   THE   DIVISION. 

to  place  our  ministers  on  the  "bed  of  Procrustes," 
and  require  them,  on  pain  of  excommunication,  to  be 
exactly  conformed  to  this  iron  model.  Uniformity  in 
Christian  doctrine  is  not  understood  as  requiring  a 
perfect  agreement  in  ^' minor'  points;  but  it  is 
equally  removed  from  that  false  liberality  which 
includes  under  the  head  of  minor  points,  important 
and  dangerous  errors.  The  Bible  rule  is,  "first  pure, 
theil  peaceable."  To  secure  this  purity,  and  the 
peace  that  succeeds  it,  was  the  end  which  the  Old- 
school  hoped  to  obtain  by  the  separation;  it  having 
become  apparent  that  neither  was  practicable  while 
the  two  parties  remained  together.  And  as  far  as  we 
are  able  to  judge  by  a  reference  to  the  past  history  of 
the  church,  there  is  now  as  much  unity  of  doctrinal 
views  in  the  Old-school  body  as  at  any  former  period 
since  the  organization  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in 
this  country.  The  present  character  of  the  New- 
school  church  in  this  respect,  I  shall  not  attempt  to 
describe.  At  the  Auburn  Convention  in  1837,  a 
prominent  member  observed  to  me,  "You  find  us 
here  of  all  colours;"  but  I  trust  they  have  become 
more  homogeneous  in  sentiment  since  that  time. 

A  third  result  of  the  division  has  been  the  existence 
of  more  harmony  and  efiiciency  in  henevolent  action. 
Above  a  century  ago,  the  work  of  sending  missiona- 
ries to  our  frontier  settlements  and  the  Indian  tribes 
received  the  attention  of  the  church ;  and  simultane- 
ously with  this,  the  education  of  pious  and  talented 
young  men  for  the  gospel  ministry.  The  records  of 
old  Synods  of  New  York  and  Philadelphia,  before  and 


EPrECTS   OF   THE   DIVISION.  283 

after  the  union,  show  that  a  great  deal  was  accom- 
plished in  these  several  departments;  and  after  the 
organization  of  the  General  Assembly,  in  1789,  these 
objects  occupy  a  prominent  place  in  the  minutes  of 
that  body.  In  1802,  the  Assembly  appointed  a 
Standing  Committee  of  Missions ;  and  in  1817  they 
constituted  the  Board  of  Missions,  with  enlarged 
powers  and  a  permanent  organization.  An  overture 
was  sent  down  to  the  Presbyteries  in  1805,  respecting 
the  education  of  pious  youth  for  the  gospel  ministry, 
and  action  was  taken  on  the  subject  'at  the  following 
and  one  or  two  subsequent  meetings  of  the  Assembly, 
till  1819,  when  the  Board  of  Education  was  consti- 
tuted, to  superintend  and  carry  on  this  department  in 
behalf  of  the  Assembly.  But  for  some  time  these 
Boards  were  rather  bonds  of  union  between  the  differ- 
ent judicatories  of  the  church,  than  the  sole  agents  to 
prosecute  the  work.  Presbyteries  and  Synods,  in 
many  instances,  conducted  both  missions  and  educa- 
tion in  their  own  bounds,  and  reported  their  doings 
annually,  either  to  the  Boards  or  directly  to  the  As- 
sembly. Important  good,  however,  was  accomplished 
by  the  direct  agency  of  these  Boards,  both  in  training 
candidates  and  in  sending  missionaries  to  destitute 
white  settlements,  to  the  coloured  population  of  the 
South,  and  to  different  Indian  tribes.  In  1809,  the 
Assembly  adopted  a  resolution,  "  earnestly  recom- 
mending that  each  Synod  take  measures  for  establish- 
ing as  many  religious  tract  societies  within  their 
bounds,  by  the  associating  of  one  or  more  Presbyte- 
ries, as  may  be  most  convenient  for  this  purpose." 


284  EFFECTS   OF   THE   DIVISION. 

One  sucli  society  was  subsequently  organized  by  the 
Synod  of  Philadelphia,  denominated  the  Presbyterian 
Tract  Society,  which  published  fifteen  or  twenty  valu- 
able tracts,  forming  two  volumes  of  the  series  of  works 
now  issued  by  the  Assembly's  Board  of  Publication. 

The  formation  of  the  American  Board  of  Commis- 
sioners for  Foreign  Missions,  the  American  Education 
Society,  the  American  Home  Missionary  Society,  and 
the  American  Tract  Society,  modified  the  policy  and 
divided  the  action  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  with 
regard  to  these  several  objects.  Except  the  Synod 
of  Pittsburgh,  who  carried  on  the  missionary  work 
among  several  tribes  of  Indians,  our  efi*orts  for  Foreign 
Missions  were  made  principally  through  the  American 
Board.  The  mission  among  the  Cherokees,  which  had 
been  commenced  by  the  Committee  of  Missions  ap- 
pointed by  the  Assembly,  and  conducted  successfully 
for  seven  years,  at  an  expense  of  eight  or  ten  thousand 
dollars,  was  placed  under  the  care  of  that  Board ;  and 
the  Synods  of  Virginia  and  North  Carolina  formed 
therewith  a  direct  auxiliary  connection ;  though  with 
the  condition  incorporated  in  their  constitution,  that 
they  might  withdraw  from  it  w^ithout  offence,  or  a 
breach  of  courtesy,  whenever  the  General  Assembly 
should  think  proper  to  resume  the  work  of  Foreign 
Missions.  The  American  Education  Society  had  a 
Presbyterian  Branch,  and  the  American  Tract  and 
Home  Missionary  Societies  were  allowed  free  ac- 
cess to  our  churches  for  the  collection  of  funds 
to  carry  on  their  operations.  In  the  department  of 
Domestic  Missions  and  Ministerial  Education,  for  the 


EFFECTS   OF   THE   DIVISION.  285 

promotion  of  wliich  our  own  Boards  were  operating  at 
the  same  time,  difficulties  and  collisions  were  found  to 
result  from  the  action  of  two  independent  organiza- 
tions for  these  objects  in  the  same  field,  to  say  nothing 
of  the  doctrinal  errors  which  were  incidentally  intro- 
duced among  us  through  the  operation  of  those  socie- 
ties. The  action  of  our  Boards  was  restrained  and 
embarrassed,  and  far  less  was  accomplished  than 
would  have  been  under  more  favorable  circumstances. 
This  was  one  source  of  the  difficulty  between  the  two 
parties  in  the  church,  some  particulars  of  which  have 
been  already  given.  The  resolutions  adopted  by  the 
last  New-school  Assembly  on  this  subject,  are  a  virtual 
admission  that  the  Old-school  were  right  in  that  con- 
test. Since  the  division,  these  four  objects,  viz ;  Do- 
mestic Missions,  Foreign  Missions,  Ministerial  and 
General  Education,  and  the  Publication  of  Evangelical 
Books  and  Tracts,  have  been  all  conducted  by  as  many 
distinct  but  co-ordinate  Boards,  under  the  supervision 
of  the  General  Assembly.  We  regard  them  as  wisely 
adapted  to  accomplish  the  ends  which  they  have  in 
view.  For  harmony  and  energy  in  action,  for  effi- 
ciency and  usefulness  in  their  results,  they  are  unsur- 
passed by  any  similar  organizations  in  our  country. 
Next  to  the  stated  ministry  of  the  gospel,  they  con- 
stitute the  power  and  glory  of  our  church.  Their 
success  and  usefulness  afford  pleasing  evidence  of  the 
divine  favour.  Yes !  I  record  it,  not  with  boasting, 
but  gratitude,  that  (as  I  verily  believe)  the  Holy  Spirit 
is  with  these  Boards  of  the  church,  and  that  the  pro- 
vidence of  God  is  over  them — the  former  to  impart  to 


286  EFFECTS    OP   THE   DIVISION. 

them  unity  and  vitality;  the  latter  to  defend  and 
prosper  them: — as  in  Ezekiel's  vision  of  the  four 
wheels,  (i.  15 — 28)  whose  co-ordinate  and  involved 
movemeiits  were  regular,  harmonious,  and  constant, 
receiving  their  impetus  from  an  invisible  spirit  within 
them,  while  above,  directing  and  controling  the  whole, 
appeared  the  enthroned  Redeemer,  encircled  with  the 
bow  of  covenant  love.  We  have  now  no  pretext  for 
inaction.  While  we  rejoice  in  the  zeal  and  success  of 
every  branch  of  Christ's  church  who  are  engaged  in 
promoting  his  cause,  let  us  not  be  behind  them,  either 
in  the  expansiveness  or  efficiency  of  our  benevolence. 
Finally;  we  have  enjoyed  as  a  church  greater 
prosiJerity  and  enlargement  since  the  division,  than 
could  have  been  reasonably  anticipated,  if  the  two 
parties  had  continued  together.  Had  there  been  a 
unanimity  of  sentiment  in  the  whole  church,  our 
growth,  like  that  of  our  nation,  might  have  been  con- 
stant; and  our  prosperity  increased  rather  than  di- 
minished, by  preserving  the  integrity  of  the  body, 
and  "  consecrating  our  united  energies  to  the  ad- 
vancement of  Christ's  kingdom."  But  we  were  vir- 
tually divided,  for  several  years  before  the  organi- 
zation of  two  separate  bodies — divided  in  sentiment 
though  nominally  acting  in  concert.  Under  these 
circumstances,  a  merely  nominal  union  added  nothing 
either  to  the  beauty  or  strength  of  the  church ;  and 
our  continuance  in  the  same  body  gave  no  promise  of 
future  prosperity.  After  the  separation,  each  party 
was  in  a  position  to  act  more  unitedly  and  efficiently 
than   before.     Wc  have   since  experienced   no   hin- 


PROPER  TREATMENT  OF  EACH  OTHER.      287 

derance  from  our  New-school  brethren  or  they  from 
us.  As  to  which  of  the  two  bodies  has  enjoyed 
greater  prosperity,  or  received  a  larger  number  to  its 
communion,  we  shall  make  no  particular  estimate. 
Comparisons  of  this  kind  may  be  regarded  as  invidi- 
ous ;  and  besides,  numerical  increase  is  not  a  sure 
test  of  the  divine  approbation.  But  so  far  as  an 
appeal  to  this  circumstance  is  admissible,  we  have 
abundant  reason  to  be  satisfied  and  thankful  to  God 
for  our  present  relative  position.  A  detailed  statis- 
tical account  would  show  that  in  the  increase  of 
numbers,  in  the  extension  of  territory,  and  in  what- 
ever else  constitutes  external  prosperity  we  have 
made  great  and  pleasing  progress.  But  in  the  pre- 
sent connection  I  am  not  disposed  to  particularize. 
There  is  an  apostolic  caution,  "  Be  not  high  minded 
but  fear."  Since  we  are  so  highly  favoured  in 
outward  circumstances,  let  it  be  our  earnest  prayer 
and  diligent  effort  to  enjoy  in  an  equal  degree 
interrial  prosperity.  Our  growth  in  grace  and  holi- 
ness should  be  in  grand  parallel  with  our  progress  in 
numbers  and  influence. 

PROPER  TREATMENT  OF  EACH  OTHER. 

As  we  are  now  two  distinct  bodies,  it  is  obvious  that 
the  same  principles  should  govern  us  in  our  inter- 
course with  each  other,  as  are  applicable  to  all  evan- 
gelical churches.  The  circumstance  that  we  have 
recently  been  one  church,  has  a  tendency  (such  is 
human  nature)  to  make  us  more  cold  in  exchanging 
ordinary  Christian  courtesies,  than  we  should  be,  if 


288      PROPER  TREATMENT  OF  EACH  OTHER. 

we  had  never  belonged  to  the  same  body.  This  ten- 
dency has  been  counteracted,  in  a  great  degree,  by 
the  lapse  of  fifteen  years;  and  it  will  be  ere  long 
removed,  unless  a  vindictive  and  jealous  spirit  is  fos- 
tered and  kept  alive  by  those  who  control  public  sen- 
timent. The  Old-school,  as  far  as  I  am  acquainted, 
are  generally  disposed  to  treat  their  New-school 
brethren  with  kindness ;  to  throw  no  obstacle  in  the 
way  of  their  prosperity ;  to  hold  with  them  occasional 
communion;  to  supply  their  pulpits  when  invited, 
and  to  extend  to  their  ministers  who  may  be  known 
to  be  sound  in  the  faith,  ministerial  fellowship  and 
confidence.  These  feelings  are  reciprocated  by  some 
of  the  New-school  body.  But  others  among  them 
continue  to  reiterate,  in  censorious  and  even  abusive 
language,  the  charge  of  injustice  and  oppression,  in 
the  measures  adopted  by  the  General  Assembly  of 
1837,  to  accuse  us  of  an  intolerant  and  bigoted  spirit 
in  not  noAV  consenting  to  a  reunion  of  the  two  bodies, 
and  yet  insinuate  that  we  contemplate  a  union  at  no 
distant  day,  by  the  "  absorption  of  their  ministers 
and  churches."  We  refer  to  these  things,  not  to  dis- 
cuss their  merits,  but  for  the  purpose  of  remarking, 

(1)  that  it  is  a  singular  preparation  for  reunion,  to 
abuse  the  party  with  whom  it  is  proposed  to  unite; 

(2)  that  if  we  were  to  form  a  reunion,  and  if  such  a 
spirit  as  is  here  manifested  towards  the  Old-school 
body  should  be  exhibited  witliin  it,  a  second  division 
would  be  as  necessary  as  the  first ;  (3)  that  when  the 
chief  causes  which  produced  the  separation  shall  cease 
to  exist,  the  Old-school  church  will  unquestionably  be 


PROPER  TREATMENT  OP  EACH  OTHER.      289 

as  cordial  in  listening  to  an  overture  for  reunion 
from  the  New-school  division,  as  they  always  have 
been  when  receiving  similar  applications  from  other 
churches  of  the  same  faith  and  order  with  ourselves; 
(4)  that  we  never  have  been  distinguished  as  a  prose- 
lyting church,  are  not  so  now,  and  of  course  are  not 
accustomed  to  make  any  attempts  to  **  absorb  the  min- 
isters and  churches"  of  other  denominations;  yet  we 
always  open  oui*  doors  to  receive  those,  whether  min- 
isters, churches,  or  individual  members,  who  embrace 
the  doctrines  contained  in  our  standards,  and  express 
a  desire  to  enter  our  communion ;  (5)  that  though  for 
a  number  of  years  before  the  separation,  we  were  un- 
happily too  often  coming  into  collision,  it  becomes  us 
now  to  lay  aside  former  jealousies,  and  "study  the 
things  which  make  for  peace."  There  is  no  good 
reason  why  "Ephraim  should  envy  Judah,  or  Judah 
vex  Ephraim." 

It  is  on  the  whole  no  disadvantage  that  there  are 
different  Christian  denominations.  The  numerical 
unity  of  the  Papal  church,  or  even  its  boasted  unity 
of  religious  faith,  is  very  dissimilar  to  the  catholic 
unity  which  is  commended  and  enjoined  in  the  Holy 
Scriptures.  The  Reformed  churches  in  the  days  of 
Luther  and  Calvin,  Cranmer  and  Knox,  though  not 
in  every  respect  identical  in  creed,  form  of  govern- 
ment, or  mode  of  worship,  were  characterized  by  as 
much  real  unity  as  though  they  had  all  acknowledged 
one  visible  head;  and  they  probably  acted  with 
greater  efficiency  in  their  varied  yet  concurring  ef- 
forts to  advance  the  Redeemer's  kingdom.  The  same 
25 


290      PROPER  TREATMENT  OF  EACH  OTHER. 

may  be  true  now ;  and  hence  it  should  be  regarded  as 
an  object  of  less  importance  to  secure  an  organic 
union  of  all  evangelical  churches  in  the  same  body, 
than  to  see  them  all  faithfully  and  zealously  perform- 
ing the  work  of  the  Lord  under  their  own  banners ; 
while  towards  each  other  they  keep  "the  unity  of  the 
Spirit  in  the  bond  of  peace."  This  idea  carried  out 
to  perfection,  with  the  additional  one  of  the  glorious 
presence  of  Christ  with  his  people,  contains  the  chief 
elements  in  those  sublime  descriptions  recorded  in 
God's  word,  of  the  future  state  of  the  Church  during 
her  best  and  brightest  period  on  earth. 


THE  END. 


Date  Due 

JO  1 9  '53 

mmmmMl 

•n^ 

««f-----''^' 

^...^mmmmm 

w» 

'--     ^«-^^' 

-i,-*'*^ 

iicrr3-i98 

b 

ftftt  VToTW 

« 

f^sap*^***"wifc^, 

.<v' 

j.i*-*-*^* 

liMIMIP 

(|) 

vr'-^-'^v 


